OT (long): Why is Miller in Jail?

[ScottW]

This off-topic post is about this perplexing story about Rove outing a
covert CIA agent, Valerie Plame Wilson, wife of Joe Wilson.

One Judith Miller of the NY Times has chosen to go to jail rather than
reveal in grand jury testimony the source of a story she never wrote.
Why?

All we know is the following:

Rove spoke to a Mr. Cooper of the Times and told him in passing
reference not to go to far with the Wilson story (about an op/ed Joe
Wilson wrote in the NY Times discrediting Bush statements on Iraq
seeking uranium in Africa). Rove let Cooper know that the White House
was going to point out that Wilson did not go to Niger under the
direction of VP Cheney as his piece said... but it was actually
Wilson's wife at the CIA who arranged his trip.
(many are screaming this was a crime on Rove's part...maybe and maybe
not)

Rove has issued a waiver of confidentiality allowing journalists to
testify about any conversations they had with him on Wilson, his Wife
etc. Hence Coopers above testimony.

Judith Miller of the NY Times refused to testify. We don't even know
why she was called to testify as she never wrote a story on the
subject.

But we can speculate:

She must have come up in the investigation of Robert Novak... they guy
who originally published the story that outed Wilsons wife as a CIA
agent. We don't know in what manner she is linked... yet.

We do know Cooper (a good journalist) found out about the White House
plans to discredit Wilson and his op/ed. What would a good journalist
do? Seek confirmation from Wilson? Seems likely.

What would Wilson do when he found out the White House was gonna
challenge his credibility by pointing out that he did not go to Niger
under the direction of the VP as he claimed?

I gotta think he would run off to the NY Times (publisher of his op/ed)
and tell them they might have a problem with his piece. Of course he
would know that directly outing his wife is a problem due to her (now
questionable but..) cover CIA operative status.

So what if Judith Miller (the lady in jail who also just happens to
work for the NY Times) figured setting up Rove as being guilty of
outing Mrs. Wilson would be a great way to deflect the discredit of the
NY Times Op/Ed piece. What if she slipped the info about Wilsons wife
to Bob Novak?

Now that would explain why she won't testify... it isn't to protect 1st
amendment rights of a journalist and their sources...it's to save her
ass from serious jail time for outing a covert CIA operative.

It also appears the White House has figured this all out and is letting
pieces come out slowly that make Rove look bad. All they have been
doing is baiting a trap. Harry Reid and Howard Dean and many other dems
(as well as some low level repubs) have taken the bait and called for
Rove to resign. I'm thinking they're hoping Hillary will jump on board
before Novak's sources are revealed as Judith Miller and Joe Wilson
himself outing his own wife to save his ass.

This would leave all those Dems who took the bait and called for Roves
firing or resignation looking pretty silly.

And last night a silent and black helicopter was hovering over my
house :).

ScottW

[MINe 109]

In article . com>,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> This off-topic post is about this perplexing story about Rove outing a
> covert CIA agent, Valerie Plame Wilson, wife of Joe Wilson.
>
> One Judith Miller of the NY Times has chosen to go to jail rather than
> reveal in grand jury testimony the source of a story she never wrote.
> Why?
>
> All we know is the following:

No.

> Rove spoke to a Mr. Cooper of the Times and told him in passing
> reference not to go to far with the Wilson story (about an op/ed Joe
> Wilson wrote in the NY Times discrediting Bush statements on Iraq
> seeking uranium in Africa). Rove let Cooper know that the White House
> was going to point out that Wilson did not go to Niger under the
> direction of VP Cheney as his piece said... but it was actually
> Wilson's wife at the CIA who arranged his trip.

The VP's office asked the CIA to look into Niger. (To say Wilson claim
it was Cheney personally is untrue and a weasel.) Wilson was asked by
the CIA to go because he was highly qualified to assess the situation.
His wife was in no position to "arrange his trip" or authorize it.

> (many are screaming this was a crime on Rove's part...maybe and maybe
> not)

> Rove has issued a waiver of confidentiality allowing journalists to
> testify about any conversations they had with him on Wilson, his Wife
> etc. Hence Coopers above testimony.

Of course, it took a couple of years for it to kick in. Wasn't the White
supposed to cooperate with the special prosecutor?

> Judith Miller of the NY Times refused to testify. We don't even know
> why she was called to testify as she never wrote a story on the
> subject.
>
> But we can speculate:

<snip>

> This would leave all those Dems who took the bait and called for Roves
> firing or resignation looking pretty silly.

Or it would just muddy the waters to divert attention from a concerted
effort to discredit or punish Wilson by outing his wife.

> And last night a silent and black helicopter was hovering over my
> house :).

I hope this means the preceding was some kind of joke...

Stephen

[ScottW]

MINe 109 wrote:
> In article . com>,
> "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> > This off-topic post is about this perplexing story about Rove outing a
> > covert CIA agent, Valerie Plame Wilson, wife of Joe Wilson.
> >
> > One Judith Miller of the NY Times has chosen to go to jail rather than
> > reveal in grand jury testimony the source of a story she never wrote.
> > Why?
> >
> > All we know is the following:
>
> No.
>
> > Rove spoke to a Mr. Cooper of the Times and told him in passing
> > reference not to go to far with the Wilson story (about an op/ed Joe
> > Wilson wrote in the NY Times discrediting Bush statements on Iraq
> > seeking uranium in Africa). Rove let Cooper know that the White House
> > was going to point out that Wilson did not go to Niger under the
> > direction of VP Cheney as his piece said... but it was actually
> > Wilson's wife at the CIA who arranged his trip.
>
> The VP's office asked the CIA to look into Niger. (To say Wilson claim
> it was Cheney personally is untrue and a weasel.) Wilson was asked by
> the CIA to go because he was highly qualified to assess the situation.
> His wife was in no position to "arrange his trip" or authorize it.

She did write a memo recomending him even though he would later claim
that she had "nothing to do with it". Anyway... who sent him or even
the credibility of his report is a nit in this angle to the story.

>
> > (many are screaming this was a crime on Rove's part...maybe and maybe
> > not)
>
> > Rove has issued a waiver of confidentiality allowing journalists to
> > testify about any conversations they had with him on Wilson, his Wife
> > etc. Hence Coopers above testimony.
>
> Of course, it took a couple of years for it to kick in. Wasn't the White
> supposed to cooperate with the special prosecutor?

I'm thinking they would have liked for this thing to explode closer to
next election and make an election impacting splash... but timetables
of grand juries are probably hard to manipulate.

>
> > Judith Miller of the NY Times refused to testify. We don't even know
> > why she was called to testify as she never wrote a story on the
> > subject.
> >
> > But we can speculate:
>
> <snip>
>
> > This would leave all those Dems who took the bait and called for Roves
> > firing or resignation looking pretty silly.
>
> Or it would just muddy the waters to divert attention from a concerted
> effort to discredit or punish Wilson by outing his wife.

At this point the Senate Intelligence Committe has sufficiently
discredited Wilson.... I don't think the risk/reward is/was there in
outing his wife.

>
> > And last night a silent and black helicopter was hovering over my
> > house :).
>
> I hope this means the preceding was some kind of joke...

Not really... just indicating how F'd up this whole story has become.

If Rove or anyone in the White House was the source... what plausible
explanation can there be for Judith Miller's refusal to testify?

ScottW

[MINe 109]

In article . com>,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> MINe 109 wrote:
> > In article . com>,
> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >
> > > This off-topic post is about this perplexing story about Rove outing a
> > > covert CIA agent, Valerie Plame Wilson, wife of Joe Wilson.
> > >
> > > One Judith Miller of the NY Times has chosen to go to jail rather than
> > > reveal in grand jury testimony the source of a story she never wrote.
> > > Why?
> > >
> > > All we know is the following:
> >
> > No.
> >
> > > Rove spoke to a Mr. Cooper of the Times and told him in passing
> > > reference not to go to far with the Wilson story (about an op/ed Joe
> > > Wilson wrote in the NY Times discrediting Bush statements on Iraq
> > > seeking uranium in Africa). Rove let Cooper know that the White House
> > > was going to point out that Wilson did not go to Niger under the
> > > direction of VP Cheney as his piece said... but it was actually
> > > Wilson's wife at the CIA who arranged his trip.
> >
> > The VP's office asked the CIA to look into Niger. (To say Wilson claim
> > it was Cheney personally is untrue and a weasel.) Wilson was asked by
> > the CIA to go because he was highly qualified to assess the situation.
> > His wife was in no position to "arrange his trip" or authorize it.
>
> She did write a memo recomending him even though he would later claim
> that she had "nothing to do with it". Anyway... who sent him or even
> the credibility of his report is a nit in this angle to the story.
>
> >
> > > (many are screaming this was a crime on Rove's part...maybe and maybe
> > > not)
> >
> > > Rove has issued a waiver of confidentiality allowing journalists to
> > > testify about any conversations they had with him on Wilson, his Wife
> > > etc. Hence Coopers above testimony.
> >
> > Of course, it took a couple of years for it to kick in. Wasn't the White
> > supposed to cooperate with the special prosecutor?
>
> I'm thinking they would have liked for this thing to explode closer to
> next election and make an election impacting splash... but timetables
> of grand juries are probably hard to manipulate.

Bush said the White House would cooperate in 2003.

> > > Judith Miller of the NY Times refused to testify. We don't even know
> > > why she was called to testify as she never wrote a story on the
> > > subject.
> > >
> > > But we can speculate:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > > This would leave all those Dems who took the bait and called for Roves
> > > firing or resignation looking pretty silly.
> >
> > Or it would just muddy the waters to divert attention from a concerted
> > effort to discredit or punish Wilson by outing his wife.
>
> At this point the Senate Intelligence Committe has sufficiently
> discredited Wilson.... I don't think the risk/reward is/was there in
> outing his wife.

Politics aside, Wilson was right about the uranium and the documents
have been proven forgeries. Considering politics, Wilson's anti-Bush
sentiment emerged after SOTU address and the famous "sixteen words."

Yes, we might all wonder what the White House, Rove and the other
leakers, thought could be gained by identifying Plame.

> > > And last night a silent and black helicopter was hovering over my
> > > house :).
> >
> > I hope this means the preceding was some kind of joke...
>
> Not really... just indicating how F'd up this whole story has become.
>
> If Rove or anyone in the White House was the source... what plausible
> explanation can there be for Judith Miller's refusal to testify?

Her source was someone other than Rove and someone who has not released
her from a promise of confidentiality.

Stephen

[ScottW]

MINe 109 wrote:
> In article . com>,
> "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> >
> > I'm thinking they would have liked for this thing to explode closer to
> > next election and make an election impacting splash... but timetables
> > of grand juries are probably hard to manipulate.
>
> Bush said the White House would cooperate in 2003.

2003 is over :) Hey, AFAICT, its the reporters refusing to
disclose... not the White House.

>
> > > > Judith Miller of the NY Times refused to testify. We don't even know
> > > > why she was called to testify as she never wrote a story on the
> > > > subject.
> > > >
> > > > But we can speculate:
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > > > This would leave all those Dems who took the bait and called for Roves
> > > > firing or resignation looking pretty silly.
> > >
> > > Or it would just muddy the waters to divert attention from a concerted
> > > effort to discredit or punish Wilson by outing his wife.
> >
> > At this point the Senate Intelligence Committe has sufficiently
> > discredited Wilson.... I don't think the risk/reward is/was there in
> > outing his wife.
>
> Politics aside, Wilson was right about the uranium and the documents
> have been proven forgeries. Considering politics, Wilson's anti-Bush
> sentiment emerged after SOTU address and the famous "sixteen words."

Again... the Senate Intelligence Committe found that Wilson's original
report (informal though it was) to the CIA did not contradict those "16
words" and was in significant conflict with his own op/ed.

>
> Yes, we might all wonder what the White House, Rove and the other
> leakers, thought could be gained by identifying Plame.
>
> > > > And last night a silent and black helicopter was hovering over my
> > > > house :).
> > >
> > > I hope this means the preceding was some kind of joke...
> >
> > Not really... just indicating how F'd up this whole story has become.
> >
> > If Rove or anyone in the White House was the source... what plausible
> > explanation can there be for Judith Miller's refusal to testify?
>
> Her source was someone other than Rove and someone who has not released
> her from a promise of confidentiality.

Source for what? She didn't write a story. The NY Times says she
wasn't even working on a story. So you admit if it was a White House
aide they would release the info?
If it wasn't a WH aide then someone outside the White House outed
Plame.
The only thing that makes any sense is Wilson outed his own wife and
Miller was involved in getting the info to Novac.
If it was anyone in the administration she would and should talk.
Hell... she should talk anyway.

ScottW

[MINe 109]

In article . com>,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> MINe 109 wrote:
> > In article . com>,
> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > I'm thinking they would have liked for this thing to explode closer to
> > > next election and make an election impacting splash... but timetables
> > > of grand juries are probably hard to manipulate.
> >
> > Bush said the White House would cooperate in 2003.
>
> 2003 is over :) Hey, AFAICT, its the reporters refusing to
> disclose... not the White House.

Rove (or his proxies) gave Cooper his waiver just days ago when that
could have been done as far back as 2003.

I think the prosecutor knows what's up, so it's just a matter of
compelling witnesses to cooperate.

> > > > > Judith Miller of the NY Times refused to testify. We don't even know
> > > > > why she was called to testify as she never wrote a story on the
> > > > > subject.
> > > > >
> > > > > But we can speculate:
> > > >
> > > > <snip>
> > > >
> > > > > This would leave all those Dems who took the bait and called for Roves
> > > > > firing or resignation looking pretty silly.
> > > >
> > > > Or it would just muddy the waters to divert attention from a concerted
> > > > effort to discredit or punish Wilson by outing his wife.
> > >
> > > At this point the Senate Intelligence Committe has sufficiently
> > > discredited Wilson.... I don't think the risk/reward is/was there in
> > > outing his wife.
> >
> > Politics aside, Wilson was right about the uranium and the documents
> > have been proven forgeries. Considering politics, Wilson's anti-Bush
> > sentiment emerged after SOTU address and the famous "sixteen words."
>
> Again... the Senate Intelligence Committe found that Wilson's original
> report (informal though it was) to the CIA did not contradict those "16
> words" and was in significant conflict with his own op/ed.

Just a minute, let me research.

Interesting. The Susan Schmidt who wrote the Washington Post article
that may have been your source is referred to as "Mikey" (as in "Life"
cereal) by the Washington press corps.

She's the one who wrote that the "Iraq" tried to purchase yellowcake
when the report said it was "Iran" that did so.

While the report may have been spun as discrediting Wilson, subsequent
events have shown him to be essentially correct, quibbles such as who
can actually authorize a trip aside. The report itself was controversial
because the committee remained divided on these key issues.

> > Yes, we might all wonder what the White House, Rove and the other
> > leakers, thought could be gained by identifying Plame.
> >
> > > > > And last night a silent and black helicopter was hovering over my
> > > > > house :).
> > > >
> > > > I hope this means the preceding was some kind of joke...
> > >
> > > Not really... just indicating how F'd up this whole story has become.
> > >
> > > If Rove or anyone in the White House was the source... what plausible
> > > explanation can there be for Judith Miller's refusal to testify?
> >
> > Her source was someone other than Rove and someone who has not released
> > her from a promise of confidentiality.
>
> Source for what? She didn't write a story. The NY Times says she
> wasn't even working on a story. So you admit if it was a White House
> aide they would release the info?

What 'admit'? I am just pointing out logically that if Miller won't use
Rove's waiver, maybe Rove wasn't her source and that she is honoring an
agreement with whoever that is.

Of course, if it's a White House aide, he or she should honor the
President's wishes and cooperate.

> If it wasn't a WH aide then someone outside the White House outed
> Plame.
> The only thing that makes any sense is Wilson outed his own wife and
> Miller was involved in getting the info to Novac.
> If it was anyone in the administration she would and should talk.
> Hell... she should talk anyway.

Ah. Up is down. Attack the opponent's strength. Proof by assertion.

There are more sensible options.

[ScottW]

"MINe 109" > wrote in message
...
>> >

(snip that stuff... this is the guts of the story that has me perplexed).

>> > Her source was someone other than Rove and someone who has not released
>> > her from a promise of confidentiality.
>>
>> Source for what? She didn't write a story. The NY Times says she
>> wasn't even working on a story. So you admit if it was a White House
>> aide they would release the info?
>
> What 'admit'? I am just pointing out logically that if Miller won't use
> Rove's waiver, maybe Rove wasn't her source and that she is honoring an
> agreement with whoever that is.

Not if it was in the WH. No way the NY Times wouldn't jump all over that
and stick it to Bush and his advisers.

>
> Of course, if it's a White House aide, he or she should honor the
> President's wishes and cooperate.

Exactly... no reason not to.

>
>> If it wasn't a WH aide then someone outside the White House outed
>> Plame.
>> The only thing that makes any sense is Wilson outed his own wife and
>> Miller was involved in getting the info to Novac.
>> If it was anyone in the administration she would and should talk.
>> Hell... she should talk anyway.
>
> Ah. Up is down. Attack the opponent's strength.

What strength in refusing to testify? The media is glorifying Miller
as a martyr but I just don't see it. You can't hide behind the
protections of a journalist if you aren't acting as a journalist.


> Proof by assertion.

All we can do is speculate until this thing runs its course.
>
> There are more sensible options.

I'm open to ideas Frankly I can't come up with one that makes enough sense
for
Miller to go to jail. And why don't we know Novacs story?

Only one coming forward is Cooper and his statements aren't all that
incriminating for Rove.

Its truly a very strange story unfolding ever so slowly.

ScottW

[MINe 109]

In article <JUFBe.37587$up5.24866@lakeread02>,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> >
>
> (snip that stuff... this is the guts of the story that has me perplexed).
>
> >> > Her source was someone other than Rove and someone who has not released
> >> > her from a promise of confidentiality.
> >>
> >> Source for what? She didn't write a story. The NY Times says she
> >> wasn't even working on a story. So you admit if it was a White House
> >> aide they would release the info?
> >
> > What 'admit'? I am just pointing out logically that if Miller won't use
> > Rove's waiver, maybe Rove wasn't her source and that she is honoring an
> > agreement with whoever that is.
>
> Not if it was in the WH. No way the NY Times wouldn't jump all over that
> and stick it to Bush and his advisers.

The Times has shown no particular inclination to do so.

> > Of course, if it's a White House aide, he or she should honor the
> > President's wishes and cooperate.
>
> Exactly... no reason not to.

Apparently some reporters didn't trust the blanket waivers distributed
by the prosecutor and waited for more personal assurances from the
sources.

> >> If it wasn't a WH aide then someone outside the White House outed
> >> Plame.
> >> The only thing that makes any sense is Wilson outed his own wife and
> >> Miller was involved in getting the info to Novac.
> >> If it was anyone in the administration she would and should talk.
> >> Hell... she should talk anyway.
> >
> > Ah. Up is down. Attack the opponent's strength.
>
> What strength in refusing to testify?

No, the strength inherent in having the high ground due to a concerted
effort to damage a whistleblower by attacking his wife.

> The media is glorifying Miller
> as a martyr but I just don't see it. You can't hide behind the
> protections of a journalist if you aren't acting as a journalist.

I've seen her compared to the Skokie march in the sense that you must
defend the worst to preserve rights for all. Indeed, some feel Miller
has betrayed her profession by carrying so much water for the White
House. Her WMD reports sourced from the WH and Chalabi's cronies (did
she use "Curveball"?) were important steps in leading us into Iraq.
Presumably, Miller felt she was acting as a journalist, and there's
nothing anyone else can say about it.

> > Proof by assertion.
>
> All we can do is speculate until this thing runs its course.
> >
> > There are more sensible options.
>
> I'm open to ideas Frankly I can't come up with one that makes enough sense
> for Miller to go to jail. And why don't we know Novacs story?

His sources all signed waivers! and he trusted those waivers, unlike
Cooper. Novak's the worst of them. The initial ID was bad enough, but
following it by outing her cover company for those who couldn't put two
and two together compounds the offense.

The simplest idea is that Miller really is protecting a source and
refusing to testify.

> Only one coming forward is Cooper and his statements aren't all that
> incriminating for Rove.

I'm sure the investigation is not based on that single email. Oh,
there's also an ethical dimension to Rove's behaviour.

> Its truly a very strange story unfolding ever so slowly.

Be skeptical of pretty much the entire mainstream media. They're in bed
with the powers-that-be in Washington. It took a prosecutor holding
their feet to the figurative fire to get a rise out of them.

Stephen

[ScottW]

MINe 109 wrote:
> In article <JUFBe.37587$up5.24866@lakeread02>,
> "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> > "MINe 109" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >> >
> >
> > (snip that stuff... this is the guts of the story that has me perplexed).
> >
> > >> > Her source was someone other than Rove and someone who has not released
> > >> > her from a promise of confidentiality.
> > >>
> > >> Source for what? She didn't write a story. The NY Times says she
> > >> wasn't even working on a story. So you admit if it was a White House
> > >> aide they would release the info?
> > >
> > > What 'admit'? I am just pointing out logically that if Miller won't use
> > > Rove's waiver, maybe Rove wasn't her source and that she is honoring an
> > > agreement with whoever that is.
> >
> > Not if it was in the WH. No way the NY Times wouldn't jump all over that
> > and stick it to Bush and his advisers.
>
> The Times has shown no particular inclination to do so.

On that we will have to disagree.

>
> > > Of course, if it's a White House aide, he or she should honor the
> > > President's wishes and cooperate.
> >
> > Exactly... no reason not to.
>
> Apparently some reporters didn't trust the blanket waivers distributed
> by the prosecutor and waited for more personal assurances from the
> sources.

Yet there has been no discussion that Miller has requested a personal
waiver to avoid jail... there is nothing to indicate a waiver is at
issue for her.

>
> > >> If it wasn't a WH aide then someone outside the White House outed
> > >> Plame.
> > >> The only thing that makes any sense is Wilson outed his own wife and
> > >> Miller was involved in getting the info to Novac.
> > >> If it was anyone in the administration she would and should talk.
> > >> Hell... she should talk anyway.
> > >
> > > Ah. Up is down. Attack the opponent's strength.
> >
> > What strength in refusing to testify?
>
> No, the strength inherent in having the high ground due to a concerted
> effort to damage a whistleblower by attacking his wife.

Who attacked his wife? Turns out Novac knew of Plame even before
Cooper talked to Rove and before Novac got tacit confirmation from
Rove. Who was Novac's source.... there was the attacker and that isn't
out yet.

>
> > The media is glorifying Miller
> > as a martyr but I just don't see it. You can't hide behind the
> > protections of a journalist if you aren't acting as a journalist.
>
> I've seen her compared to the Skokie march in the sense that you must
> defend the worst to preserve rights for all. Indeed, some feel Miller
> has betrayed her profession by carrying so much water for the White
> House. Her WMD reports sourced from the WH and Chalabi's cronies (did
> she use "Curveball"?) were important steps in leading us into Iraq.
> Presumably, Miller felt she was acting as a journalist, and there's
> nothing anyone else can say about it.

Great... the whole justice system and right to refuse testimony comes
down to feelings. I can "feel" I'm a journalist anytime I want.
Hell... I'm published on usenet everyday. I have at least 2 avid
readers :).

>
> > > Proof by assertion.
> >
> > All we can do is speculate until this thing runs its course.
> > >
> > > There are more sensible options.
> >
> > I'm open to ideas Frankly I can't come up with one that makes enough sense
> > for Miller to go to jail. And why don't we know Novacs story?
>
> His sources all signed waivers! and he trusted those waivers, unlike
> Cooper. Novak's the worst of them. The initial ID was bad enough, but
> following it by outing her cover company for those who couldn't put two
> and two together compounds the offense.

I haven't found anyone disclosing Novac's real source. If they signed
waivers,
why is that not out yet?

>
> The simplest idea is that Miller really is protecting a source and
> refusing to testify.

To simple... why was Miller even called to testify? She never wrote a
story.
Novac had to finger her as a source IMO.


>
> > Only one coming forward is Cooper and his statements aren't all that
> > incriminating for Rove.
>
> I'm sure the investigation is not based on that single email. Oh,
> there's also an ethical dimension to Rove's behaviour.
>
> > Its truly a very strange story unfolding ever so slowly.
>
> Be skeptical of pretty much the entire mainstream media. They're in bed
> with the powers-that-be in Washington. It took a prosecutor holding
> their feet to the figurative fire to get a rise out of them.

Many of the bloggers are out to lunch as well. They keep saying
things were in
the Op/ed that clearly aren't there. The claim that Wilson says he
went to Niger on direct request from Cheney is absolutely not in the
op/ed. I don't why people write stuff and just assume a large part of
their audience will take them at their word.

ScottW

[MINe 109]

In article . com>,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> MINe 109 wrote:
> > In article <JUFBe.37587$up5.24866@lakeread02>,
> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >
> > > "MINe 109" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >> >
> > >
> > > (snip that stuff... this is the guts of the story that has me
> > > perplexed).
> > >
> > > >> > Her source was someone other than Rove and someone who has not
> > > >> > released
> > > >> > her from a promise of confidentiality.
> > > >>
> > > >> Source for what? She didn't write a story. The NY Times says she
> > > >> wasn't even working on a story. So you admit if it was a White
> > > >> House
> > > >> aide they would release the info?
> > > >
> > > > What 'admit'? I am just pointing out logically that if Miller won't use
> > > > Rove's waiver, maybe Rove wasn't her source and that she is honoring an
> > > > agreement with whoever that is.
> > >
> > > Not if it was in the WH. No way the NY Times wouldn't jump all over that
> > > and stick it to Bush and his advisers.
> >
> > The Times has shown no particular inclination to do so.
>
> On that we will have to disagree.

I saw an argument today that the NYT *should* burn the source and
speculates that it's the same source the led to the NYT WMD coverage.

> > > > Of course, if it's a White House aide, he or she should honor the
> > > > President's wishes and cooperate.
> > >
> > > Exactly... no reason not to.
> >
> > Apparently some reporters didn't trust the blanket waivers distributed
> > by the prosecutor and waited for more personal assurances from the
> > sources.
>
> Yet there has been no discussion that Miller has requested a personal
> waiver to avoid jail... there is nothing to indicate a waiver is at
> issue for her.

As far as I know, this is true. Perhaps she's trying to preserve her
access to her source.

> > > >> If it wasn't a WH aide then someone outside the White House outed
> > > >> Plame.
> > > >> The only thing that makes any sense is Wilson outed his own wife and
> > > >> Miller was involved in getting the info to Novac.
> > > >> If it was anyone in the administration she would and should talk.
> > > >> Hell... she should talk anyway.
> > > >
> > > > Ah. Up is down. Attack the opponent's strength.
> > >
> > > What strength in refusing to testify?
> >
> > No, the strength inherent in having the high ground due to a concerted
> > effort to damage a whistleblower by attacking his wife.
>
> Who attacked his wife? Turns out Novac knew of Plame even before
> Cooper talked to Rove and before Novac got tacit confirmation from
> Rove. Who was Novac's source.... there was the attacker and that isn't
> out yet.

Nonetheless, there was a concerted effort to put her identity out, with
essentially the same info offered to six different reporters.

> > > The media is glorifying Miller
> > > as a martyr but I just don't see it. You can't hide behind the
> > > protections of a journalist if you aren't acting as a journalist.
> >
> > I've seen her compared to the Skokie march in the sense that you must
> > defend the worst to preserve rights for all. Indeed, some feel Miller
> > has betrayed her profession by carrying so much water for the White
> > House. Her WMD reports sourced from the WH and Chalabi's cronies (did
> > she use "Curveball"?) were important steps in leading us into Iraq.
> > Presumably, Miller felt she was acting as a journalist, and there's
> > nothing anyone else can say about it.
>
> Great... the whole justice system and right to refuse testimony comes
> down to feelings. I can "feel" I'm a journalist anytime I want.
> Hell... I'm published on usenet everyday. I have at least 2 avid
> readers :).

She actually *is* a journalist, of course. Anything she learns is part
of her ongoing professional activity whether or not it leads to a
specific story.

> > > > Proof by assertion.
> > >
> > > All we can do is speculate until this thing runs its course.
> > > >
> > > > There are more sensible options.
> > >
> > > I'm open to ideas Frankly I can't come up with one that makes enough
> > > sense
> > > for Miller to go to jail. And why don't we know Novacs story?
> >
> > His sources all signed waivers! and he trusted those waivers, unlike
> > Cooper. Novak's the worst of them. The initial ID was bad enough, but
> > following it by outing her cover company for those who couldn't put two
> > and two together compounds the offense.
>
> I haven't found anyone disclosing Novac's real source. If they signed
> waivers, why is that not out yet?

Good question. I don't even know if he has appeared before the grand
jury or not.

> > The simplest idea is that Miller really is protecting a source and
> > refusing to testify.
>
> To simple... why was Miller even called to testify? She never wrote a
> story. Novac had to finger her as a source IMO.

To establish a pattern of behavior. If she had been offered the Plame ID
by a subject of an investigation, that might be part of a legal case.

> > > Only one coming forward is Cooper and his statements aren't all that
> > > incriminating for Rove.
> >
> > I'm sure the investigation is not based on that single email. Oh,
> > there's also an ethical dimension to Rove's behaviour.
> >
> > > Its truly a very strange story unfolding ever so slowly.
> >
> > Be skeptical of pretty much the entire mainstream media. They're in bed
> > with the powers-that-be in Washington. It took a prosecutor holding
> > their feet to the figurative fire to get a rise out of them.
>
> Many of the bloggers are out to lunch as well. They keep saying
> things were in
> the Op/ed that clearly aren't there. The claim that Wilson says he
> went to Niger on direct request from Cheney is absolutely not in the
> op/ed. I don't why people write stuff and just assume a large part of
> their audience will take them at their word.

Yes, indeed.

Stephen

[ScottW]

"MINe 109" > wrote in message
...
> In article . com>,
> "ScottW" > wrote:
>
>> MINe 109 wrote:
>> > In article <JUFBe.37587$up5.24866@lakeread02>,
>> > "ScottW" > wrote:
>> >
>> > > "MINe 109" > wrote in message
>> > > ...
>> > > >> >
>> > >
>> > > (snip that stuff... this is the guts of the story that has me
>> > > perplexed).
>> > >
>> > > >> > Her source was someone other than Rove and someone who has not
>> > > >> > released
>> > > >> > her from a promise of confidentiality.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> Source for what? She didn't write a story. The NY Times says she
>> > > >> wasn't even working on a story. So you admit if it was a White
>> > > >> House
>> > > >> aide they would release the info?
>> > > >
>> > > > What 'admit'? I am just pointing out logically that if Miller won't
>> > > > use
>> > > > Rove's waiver, maybe Rove wasn't her source and that she is
>> > > > honoring an
>> > > > agreement with whoever that is.
>> > >
>> > > Not if it was in the WH. No way the NY Times wouldn't jump all over
>> > > that
>> > > and stick it to Bush and his advisers.
>> >
>> > The Times has shown no particular inclination to do so.
>>
>> On that we will have to disagree.
>
> I saw an argument today that the NYT *should* burn the source and
> speculates that it's the same source the led to the NYT WMD coverage.

That source was Miller. She worked on WMD reporting and Plame
worked on WMD at the CIA. She had to have come across and
then the Wilson Op/Ed and put 2 and 2 together.


>
>> > > > Of course, if it's a White House aide, he or she should honor the
>> > > > President's wishes and cooperate.
>> > >
>> > > Exactly... no reason not to.
>> >
>> > Apparently some reporters didn't trust the blanket waivers distributed
>> > by the prosecutor and waited for more personal assurances from the
>> > sources.
>>
>> Yet there has been no discussion that Miller has requested a personal
>> waiver to avoid jail... there is nothing to indicate a waiver is at
>> issue for her.
>
> As far as I know, this is true. Perhaps she's trying to preserve her
> access to her source.

I think she knew Plame from her previous work and simply
chatted it up. Apparently a number of journalists are saying that
they heard about Plame from other journalists.
>
>> > > >> If it wasn't a WH aide then someone outside the White House outed
>> > > >> Plame.
>> > > >> The only thing that makes any sense is Wilson outed his own wife
>> > > >> and
>> > > >> Miller was involved in getting the info to Novac.
>> > > >> If it was anyone in the administration she would and should talk.
>> > > >> Hell... she should talk anyway.
>> > > >
>> > > > Ah. Up is down. Attack the opponent's strength.
>> > >
>> > > What strength in refusing to testify?
>> >
>> > No, the strength inherent in having the high ground due to a concerted
>> > effort to damage a whistleblower by attacking his wife.
>>
>> Who attacked his wife? Turns out Novac knew of Plame even before
>> Cooper talked to Rove and before Novac got tacit confirmation from
>> Rove. Who was Novac's source.... there was the attacker and that isn't
>> out yet.
>
> Nonetheless, there was a concerted effort to put her identity out, with
> essentially the same info offered to six different reporters.

By whom? That isn't out there.... I think it was Miller.

>
>> > > The media is glorifying Miller
>> > > as a martyr but I just don't see it. You can't hide behind the
>> > > protections of a journalist if you aren't acting as a journalist.
>> >
>> > I've seen her compared to the Skokie march in the sense that you must
>> > defend the worst to preserve rights for all. Indeed, some feel Miller
>> > has betrayed her profession by carrying so much water for the White
>> > House. Her WMD reports sourced from the WH and Chalabi's cronies (did
>> > she use "Curveball"?) were important steps in leading us into Iraq.
>> > Presumably, Miller felt she was acting as a journalist, and there's
>> > nothing anyone else can say about it.
>>
>> Great... the whole justice system and right to refuse testimony comes
>> down to feelings. I can "feel" I'm a journalist anytime I want.
>> Hell... I'm published on usenet everyday. I have at least 2 avid
>> readers :).
>
> She actually *is* a journalist, of course. Anything she learns is part
> of her ongoing professional activity whether or not it leads to a
> specific story.

Sorry... I don't give journalists a pass on committing a crime.
If someone fed Miller the info and she passed it she is guilty.
It's quite possible Miller is the source in which case she should
plead the fifth.
She's actually doing damage to the protection of journalists.

>
>> > > > Proof by assertion.
>> > >
>> > > All we can do is speculate until this thing runs its course.
>> > > >
>> > > > There are more sensible options.
>> > >
>> > > I'm open to ideas Frankly I can't come up with one that makes
>> > > enough
>> > > sense
>> > > for Miller to go to jail. And why don't we know Novacs story?
>> >
>> > His sources all signed waivers! and he trusted those waivers, unlike
>> > Cooper. Novak's the worst of them. The initial ID was bad enough, but
>> > following it by outing her cover company for those who couldn't put two
>> > and two together compounds the offense.
>>
>> I haven't found anyone disclosing Novac's real source. If they signed
>> waivers, why is that not out yet?
>
> Good question. I don't even know if he has appeared before the grand
> jury or not.
>
>> > The simplest idea is that Miller really is protecting a source and
>> > refusing to testify.
>>
>> To simple... why was Miller even called to testify? She never wrote a
>> story. Novac had to finger her as a source IMO.
>
> To establish a pattern of behavior. If she had been offered the Plame ID
> by a subject of an investigation, that might be part of a legal case.

How would the Grand Jury or prosecutor know that she had been
offered the Plame ID?

ScottW

[MINe 109]

In article <DgYBe.45108$up5.28602@lakeread02>,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article . com>,
> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >
> >> MINe 109 wrote:
> >> > In article <JUFBe.37587$up5.24866@lakeread02>,
> >> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > "MINe 109" > wrote in message
> >> > > ...
> >> > > >> >
> >> > >
> >> > > (snip that stuff... this is the guts of the story that has me
> >> > > perplexed).
> >> > >
> >> > > >> > Her source was someone other than Rove and someone who has not
> >> > > >> > released
> >> > > >> > her from a promise of confidentiality.
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> Source for what? She didn't write a story. The NY Times says she
> >> > > >> wasn't even working on a story. So you admit if it was a White
> >> > > >> House
> >> > > >> aide they would release the info?
> >> > > >
> >> > > > What 'admit'? I am just pointing out logically that if Miller won't
> >> > > > use
> >> > > > Rove's waiver, maybe Rove wasn't her source and that she is
> >> > > > honoring an
> >> > > > agreement with whoever that is.
> >> > >
> >> > > Not if it was in the WH. No way the NY Times wouldn't jump all over
> >> > > that
> >> > > and stick it to Bush and his advisers.
> >> >
> >> > The Times has shown no particular inclination to do so.
> >>
> >> On that we will have to disagree.
> >
> > I saw an argument today that the NYT *should* burn the source and
> > speculates that it's the same source the led to the NYT WMD coverage.
>
> That source was Miller. She worked on WMD reporting and Plame
> worked on WMD at the CIA. She had to have come across and
> then the Wilson Op/Ed and put 2 and 2 together.

That could explain how the White House leakers knew about Plame.

> >> > > > Of course, if it's a White House aide, he or she should honor the
> >> > > > President's wishes and cooperate.
> >> > >
> >> > > Exactly... no reason not to.
> >> >
> >> > Apparently some reporters didn't trust the blanket waivers distributed
> >> > by the prosecutor and waited for more personal assurances from the
> >> > sources.
> >>
> >> Yet there has been no discussion that Miller has requested a personal
> >> waiver to avoid jail... there is nothing to indicate a waiver is at
> >> issue for her.
> >
> > As far as I know, this is true. Perhaps she's trying to preserve her
> > access to her source.
>
> I think she knew Plame from her previous work and simply
> chatted it up. Apparently a number of journalists are saying that
> they heard about Plame from other journalists.

Hence the relatively large number of subpoenas for journalists.

> >> > > >> If it wasn't a WH aide then someone outside the White House outed
> >> > > >> Plame.
> >> > > >> The only thing that makes any sense is Wilson outed his own wife
> >> > > >> and
> >> > > >> Miller was involved in getting the info to Novac.
> >> > > >> If it was anyone in the administration she would and should talk.
> >> > > >> Hell... she should talk anyway.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Ah. Up is down. Attack the opponent's strength.
> >> > >
> >> > > What strength in refusing to testify?
> >> >
> >> > No, the strength inherent in having the high ground due to a concerted
> >> > effort to damage a whistleblower by attacking his wife.
> >>
> >> Who attacked his wife? Turns out Novac knew of Plame even before
> >> Cooper talked to Rove and before Novac got tacit confirmation from
> >> Rove. Who was Novac's source.... there was the attacker and that isn't
> >> out yet.
> >
> > Nonetheless, there was a concerted effort to put her identity out, with
> > essentially the same info offered to six different reporters.
>
> By whom? That isn't out there.... I think it was Miller.

Rove, Libby, etc. It doesn't matter where Rove learned what he repeated
to Cooper.

> >> > > The media is glorifying Miller
> >> > > as a martyr but I just don't see it. You can't hide behind the
> >> > > protections of a journalist if you aren't acting as a journalist.
> >> >
> >> > I've seen her compared to the Skokie march in the sense that you must
> >> > defend the worst to preserve rights for all. Indeed, some feel Miller
> >> > has betrayed her profession by carrying so much water for the White
> >> > House. Her WMD reports sourced from the WH and Chalabi's cronies (did
> >> > she use "Curveball"?) were important steps in leading us into Iraq.
> >> > Presumably, Miller felt she was acting as a journalist, and there's
> >> > nothing anyone else can say about it.
> >>
> >> Great... the whole justice system and right to refuse testimony comes
> >> down to feelings. I can "feel" I'm a journalist anytime I want.
> >> Hell... I'm published on usenet everyday. I have at least 2 avid
> >> readers :).
> >
> > She actually *is* a journalist, of course. Anything she learns is part
> > of her ongoing professional activity whether or not it leads to a
> > specific story.
>
> Sorry... I don't give journalists a pass on committing a crime.

Who said we should do that?

> If someone fed Miller the info and she passed it she is guilty.
> It's quite possible Miller is the source in which case she should
> plead the fifth.

It's "wait and see" time. Miller could be in lots of trouble.

> She's actually doing damage to the protection of journalists.

I agree with that last, with additional reasons, and she didn't actually
write a story!

> >> > > > Proof by assertion.
> >> > >
> >> > > All we can do is speculate until this thing runs its course.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > There are more sensible options.
> >> > >
> >> > > I'm open to ideas Frankly I can't come up with one that makes
> >> > > enough
> >> > > sense
> >> > > for Miller to go to jail. And why don't we know Novacs story?
> >> >
> >> > His sources all signed waivers! and he trusted those waivers, unlike
> >> > Cooper. Novak's the worst of them. The initial ID was bad enough, but
> >> > following it by outing her cover company for those who couldn't put two
> >> > and two together compounds the offense.
> >>
> >> I haven't found anyone disclosing Novac's real source. If they signed
> >> waivers, why is that not out yet?
> >
> > Good question. I don't even know if he has appeared before the grand
> > jury or not.
> >
> >> > The simplest idea is that Miller really is protecting a source and
> >> > refusing to testify.
> >>
> >> To simple... why was Miller even called to testify? She never wrote a
> >> story. Novac had to finger her as a source IMO.
> >
> > To establish a pattern of behavior. If she had been offered the Plame ID
> > by a subject of an investigation, that might be part of a legal case.
>
> How would the Grand Jury or prosecutor know that she had been
> offered the Plame ID?

Other witnesses. If she's a source rather than a recipient, that might
change things for her.

It's still wrong for the WH to blow a CIA agent's cover for partisan
reasons even if it's not technically illegal.

Stephen

[ScottW]

MINe 109 wrote:
> In article <DgYBe.45108$up5.28602@lakeread02>,
> "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> > By whom? That isn't out there.... I think it was Miller.
>
> Rove, Libby, etc. It doesn't matter where Rove learned what he repeated
> to Cooper.

Legally it does... if he didn't mention her covert operative to
cooper so if he didn't know it he was not legally bound from
discussing it.

I forget which dem has been vocal screaming for an indictment
but I heard a spot where they found he had voted against the law
as it was so vaguely written it was subject to abuse :)


(snip)
> > How would the Grand Jury or prosecutor know that she had been
> > offered the Plame ID?
>
> Other witnesses. If she's a source rather than a recipient, that might
> change things for her.
>
> It's still wrong for the WH to blow a CIA agent's cover for partisan
> reasons even if it's not technically illegal.

Sure it would be. But at this point that remains a theory. The known
facts don't yet prove it or refute it. We just have to keep waiting.

Investigations can be frustratingly slow. Some local stuff with the
SEC has been dragging for years and its so obvious laws were
broken...public officials using ignorance as a defense and still no
action. It gets beyond frustrating... its almost corrupt in itself.
Someone needs to investigate why the investigation isn't producing
results.

We had a bribery of a coucilwoman (revealing close session discussions
on the new Padre ballpark to the club owner). The City Attorney... the
local DA, the States Attorney all spent months arguing it wasn't their
jurisdiction. The coucilwoman finally had to resign and I think was
found guilty of improperly accepting gifts for Christsakes.

At least Duke Cunningham can't run again.... I hope that investigation
doesn't take forever.... by the time they close the file people will
have forgotten who he was.

ScottW

[MINe 109]

In article om>,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> MINe 109 wrote:
> > In article <DgYBe.45108$up5.28602@lakeread02>,
> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >
> > > By whom? That isn't out there.... I think it was Miller.
> >
> > Rove, Libby, etc. It doesn't matter where Rove learned what he repeated
> > to Cooper.
>
> Legally it does... if he didn't mention her covert operative to
> cooper so if he didn't know it he was not legally bound from
> discussing it.

That's the legal weasel: he didn't know she was covert. Ethically, he
should have checked first before IDing her to third parties.

> I forget which dem has been vocal screaming for an indictment
> but I heard a spot where they found he had voted against the law
> as it was so vaguely written it was subject to abuse :)

You have to go with the law you have... :-)

Doesn't seem like a very good law. I have mixed feelings because of the
importance of protecting journalists and whistleblowers that must be
balanced against national security. Of course, the WH is on the wrong
side of both those concerns.

> (snip)
> > > How would the Grand Jury or prosecutor know that she had been
> > > offered the Plame ID?
> >
> > Other witnesses. If she's a source rather than a recipient, that might
> > change things for her.
> >
> > It's still wrong for the WH to blow a CIA agent's cover for partisan
> > reasons even if it's not technically illegal.
>
> Sure it would be. But at this point that remains a theory. The known
> facts don't yet prove it or refute it. We just have to keep waiting.
>
> Investigations can be frustratingly slow. Some local stuff with the
> SEC has been dragging for years and its so obvious laws were
> broken...public officials using ignorance as a defense and still no
> action. It gets beyond frustrating... its almost corrupt in itself.
> Someone needs to investigate why the investigation isn't producing
> results.

Looks like Enron will get off cheap (but not tobacco cheap) settling CA
claims.

Some congressional investigations get the slow walk, too.

> We had a bribery of a coucilwoman (revealing close session discussions
> on the new Padre ballpark to the club owner). The City Attorney... the
> local DA, the States Attorney all spent months arguing it wasn't their
> jurisdiction. The coucilwoman finally had to resign and I think was
> found guilty of improperly accepting gifts for Christsakes.

Hot potato!

> At least Duke Cunningham can't run again.... I hope that investigation
> doesn't take forever.... by the time they close the file people will
> have forgotten who he was.

Outside of his district, for sure. San Diego still seems like a small
town as far as politics go.

Stephen

[ScottW]

MINe 109 wrote:
> In article om>,
> "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> > MINe 109 wrote:
> > > In article <DgYBe.45108$up5.28602@lakeread02>,
> > > "ScottW" > wrote:
> > >
> > > > By whom? That isn't out there.... I think it was Miller.
> > >
> > > Rove, Libby, etc. It doesn't matter where Rove learned what he repeated
> > > to Cooper.
> >
> > Legally it does... if he didn't mention her covert operative to
> > cooper so if he didn't know it he was not legally bound from
> > discussing it.
>
> That's the legal weasel: he didn't know she was covert. Ethically, he
> should have checked first before IDing her to third parties.

Those same ethics taken on more step should have prohibited Wilson
from revealing he was acting at the direction of the CIA.

>
> > I forget which dem has been vocal screaming for an indictment
> > but I heard a spot where they found he had voted against the law
> > as it was so vaguely written it was subject to abuse :)
>
> You have to go with the law you have... :-)

Unfortunately.

>
> Doesn't seem like a very good law. I have mixed feelings because of the
> importance of protecting journalists and whistleblowers that must be
> balanced against national security.

Agreed, senate could be a lot more productive by looking at and
repairing the law rather than the mudslinging going on.

> Of course, the WH is on the wrong
> side of both those concerns.

Another interesting theory is that the CIA outed her for a couple
reasons.
1) They were in a big battle with the WH over the crappy WMD intell.
2) They looked like idiots for accepting Plames advice to send Wilson.
3) The WH was about to clean house over there.

So outing Valerie and sticking it on the WH provided some cover for the
stupidity of commissioning Wilson for the WMD and deterred the
housecleaning at the CIA.

>
> > (snip)
> > > > How would the Grand Jury or prosecutor know that she had been
> > > > offered the Plame ID?
> > >
> > > Other witnesses. If she's a source rather than a recipient, that might
> > > change things for her.
> > >
> > > It's still wrong for the WH to blow a CIA agent's cover for partisan
> > > reasons even if it's not technically illegal.
> >
> > Sure it would be. But at this point that remains a theory. The known
> > facts don't yet prove it or refute it. We just have to keep waiting.
> >
> > Investigations can be frustratingly slow. Some local stuff with the
> > SEC has been dragging for years and its so obvious laws were
> > broken...public officials using ignorance as a defense and still no
> > action. It gets beyond frustrating... its almost corrupt in itself.
> > Someone needs to investigate why the investigation isn't producing
> > results.
>
> Looks like Enron will get off cheap (but not tobacco cheap) settling CA
> claims.

Don't get me started on FERC. Biggest ripoff in history under their
watch.
>
> Some congressional investigations get the slow walk, too.
>
> > We had a bribery of a coucilwoman (revealing close session discussions
> > on the new Padre ballpark to the club owner). The City Attorney... the
> > local DA, the States Attorney all spent months arguing it wasn't their
> > jurisdiction. The coucilwoman finally had to resign and I think was
> > found guilty of improperly accepting gifts for Christsakes.
>
> Hot potato!
>
> > At least Duke Cunningham can't run again.... I hope that investigation
> > doesn't take forever.... by the time they close the file people will
> > have forgotten who he was.
>
> Outside of his district, for sure. San Diego still seems like a small
> town as far as politics go.

But the depth of corruption around here is beyond belief. Amazingly
at the root of most of it are unions of municipal employees.
Unchecked greed knows no boundaries.

ScottW

[MINe 109]

In article . com>,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> MINe 109 wrote:
> > In article om>,
> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >
> > > MINe 109 wrote:
> > > > In article <DgYBe.45108$up5.28602@lakeread02>,
> > > > "ScottW" > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > By whom? That isn't out there.... I think it was Miller.
> > > >
> > > > Rove, Libby, etc. It doesn't matter where Rove learned what he repeated
> > > > to Cooper.
> > >
> > > Legally it does... if he didn't mention her covert operative to
> > > cooper so if he didn't know it he was not legally bound from
> > > discussing it.
> >
> > That's the legal weasel: he didn't know she was covert. Ethically, he
> > should have checked first before IDing her to third parties.
>
> Those same ethics taken on more step should have prohibited Wilson
> from revealing he was acting at the direction of the CIA.

Not at all. His was not a covert action.

> > > I forget which dem has been vocal screaming for an indictment
> > > but I heard a spot where they found he had voted against the law
> > > as it was so vaguely written it was subject to abuse :)
> >
> > You have to go with the law you have... :-)
>
> Unfortunately.
>
> >
> > Doesn't seem like a very good law. I have mixed feelings because of the
> > importance of protecting journalists and whistleblowers that must be
> > balanced against national security.
>
> Agreed, senate could be a lot more productive by looking at and
> repairing the law rather than the mudslinging going on.

The recently proposed amendment (Dem) and counter-amendment (Repub) were
both partisan ploys that will rightly evaporate.

Also on the list of improvements: journalist shield laws.

> > Of course, the WH is on the wrong
> > side of both those concerns.
>
> Another interesting theory is that the CIA outed her for a couple
> reasons.
> 1) They were in a big battle with the WH over the crappy WMD intell.
> 2) They looked like idiots for accepting Plames advice to send Wilson.
> 3) The WH was about to clean house over there.
>
> So outing Valerie and sticking it on the WH provided some cover for the
> stupidity of commissioning Wilson for the WMD and deterred the
> housecleaning at the CIA.

These assume Wilson was somehow unsuited for the job. That's WH spin and
typical of Rovian tactics to smear dissenting voices. Wilson's findings
concerning Niger and WMD were correct.

To suggest the CIA outed its own operative is Rovian up-is-downism. As
for crappy WMD intel, the WH simply ignored intelligence that did not
support its case for war.

> > > (snip)
> > > > > How would the Grand Jury or prosecutor know that she had been
> > > > > offered the Plame ID?
> > > >
> > > > Other witnesses. If she's a source rather than a recipient, that might
> > > > change things for her.
> > > >
> > > > It's still wrong for the WH to blow a CIA agent's cover for partisan
> > > > reasons even if it's not technically illegal.
> > >
> > > Sure it would be. But at this point that remains a theory. The known
> > > facts don't yet prove it or refute it. We just have to keep waiting.
> > >
> > > Investigations can be frustratingly slow. Some local stuff with the
> > > SEC has been dragging for years and its so obvious laws were
> > > broken...public officials using ignorance as a defense and still no
> > > action. It gets beyond frustrating... its almost corrupt in itself.
> > > Someone needs to investigate why the investigation isn't producing
> > > results.
> >
> > Looks like Enron will get off cheap (but not tobacco cheap) settling CA
> > claims.
>
> Don't get me started on FERC. Biggest ripoff in history under their
> watch.

I'm mad and I don't even live in CA.

> > Some congressional investigations get the slow walk, too.
> >
> > > We had a bribery of a coucilwoman (revealing close session discussions
> > > on the new Padre ballpark to the club owner). The City Attorney... the
> > > local DA, the States Attorney all spent months arguing it wasn't their
> > > jurisdiction. The coucilwoman finally had to resign and I think was
> > > found guilty of improperly accepting gifts for Christsakes.
> >
> > Hot potato!
> >
> > > At least Duke Cunningham can't run again.... I hope that investigation
> > > doesn't take forever.... by the time they close the file people will
> > > have forgotten who he was.
> >
> > Outside of his district, for sure. San Diego still seems like a small
> > town as far as politics go.
>
> But the depth of corruption around here is beyond belief. Amazingly
> at the root of most of it are unions of municipal employees.
> Unchecked greed knows no boundaries.

That's because it's unchecked.

Stephen

[ScottW]

MINe 109 wrote:
> In article . com>,
> "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> > MINe 109 wrote:
> > > In article om>,
> > > "ScottW" > wrote:
> > >
> > > > MINe 109 wrote:
> > > > > In article <DgYBe.45108$up5.28602@lakeread02>,
> > > > > "ScottW" > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > By whom? That isn't out there.... I think it was Miller.
> > > > >
> > > > > Rove, Libby, etc. It doesn't matter where Rove learned what he repeated
> > > > > to Cooper.
> > > >
> > > > Legally it does... if he didn't mention her covert operative to
> > > > cooper so if he didn't know it he was not legally bound from
> > > > discussing it.
> > >
> > > That's the legal weasel: he didn't know she was covert. Ethically, he
> > > should have checked first before IDing her to third parties.
> >
> > Those same ethics taken on more step should have prohibited Wilson
> > from revealing he was acting at the direction of the CIA.
>
> Not at all. His was not a covert action.

No.. but his op/ed led to his CIA wife who supposedly was a covert
agent.
Did he really think his CIA employed wife would be ignored as people
looked into how he got that assignment for the CIA?

>
> > > > I forget which dem has been vocal screaming for an indictment
> > > > but I heard a spot where they found he had voted against the law
> > > > as it was so vaguely written it was subject to abuse :)
> > >
> > > You have to go with the law you have... :-)
> >
> > Unfortunately.
> >
> > >
> > > Doesn't seem like a very good law. I have mixed feelings because of the
> > > importance of protecting journalists and whistleblowers that must be
> > > balanced against national security.
> >
> > Agreed, senate could be a lot more productive by looking at and
> > repairing the law rather than the mudslinging going on.
>
> The recently proposed amendment (Dem) and counter-amendment (Repub) were
> both partisan ploys that will rightly evaporate.

Rightly? You referring to the strip Rove of his security clearance?
I am referring to the need to rewrite the Intelligence Identities
Protection Act.

>
> Also on the list of improvements: journalist shield laws.
>
> > > Of course, the WH is on the wrong
> > > side of both those concerns.
> >
> > Another interesting theory is that the CIA outed her for a couple
> > reasons.
> > 1) They were in a big battle with the WH over the crappy WMD intell.
> > 2) They looked like idiots for accepting Plames advice to send Wilson.
> > 3) The WH was about to clean house over there.
> >
> > So outing Valerie and sticking it on the WH provided some cover for the
> > stupidity of commissioning Wilson for the WMD and deterred the
> > housecleaning at the CIA.
>
> These assume Wilson was somehow unsuited for the job. That's WH spin and
> typical of Rovian tactics to smear dissenting voices. Wilson's findings
> concerning Niger and WMD were correct.

No.. there were segments that were correct and segments that were not.
The senate intelligence committee took a hard look at it... one of the
biggest problems was he never filed a formal report.

>
> To suggest the CIA outed its own operative is Rovian up-is-downism. As
> for crappy WMD intel, the WH simply ignored intelligence that did not
> support its case for war.

That position ignores years of Clinton administration conclusions
that Iraq had or was developping WMDs. It wasn't just the WH that was
screwed up.

>
> > > > (snip)
> > > > > > How would the Grand Jury or prosecutor know that she had been
> > > > > > offered the Plame ID?
> > > > >
> > > > > Other witnesses. If she's a source rather than a recipient, that might
> > > > > change things for her.
> > > > >
> > > > > It's still wrong for the WH to blow a CIA agent's cover for partisan
> > > > > reasons even if it's not technically illegal.
> > > >
> > > > Sure it would be. But at this point that remains a theory. The known
> > > > facts don't yet prove it or refute it. We just have to keep waiting.
> > > >
> > > > Investigations can be frustratingly slow. Some local stuff with the
> > > > SEC has been dragging for years and its so obvious laws were
> > > > broken...public officials using ignorance as a defense and still no
> > > > action. It gets beyond frustrating... its almost corrupt in itself.
> > > > Someone needs to investigate why the investigation isn't producing
> > > > results.
> > >
> > > Looks like Enron will get off cheap (but not tobacco cheap) settling CA
> > > claims.
> >
> > Don't get me started on FERC. Biggest ripoff in history under their
> > watch.
>
> I'm mad and I don't even live in CA.
>
> > > Some congressional investigations get the slow walk, too.
> > >
> > > > We had a bribery of a coucilwoman (revealing close session discussions
> > > > on the new Padre ballpark to the club owner). The City Attorney... the
> > > > local DA, the States Attorney all spent months arguing it wasn't their
> > > > jurisdiction. The coucilwoman finally had to resign and I think was
> > > > found guilty of improperly accepting gifts for Christsakes.
> > >
> > > Hot potato!
> > >
> > > > At least Duke Cunningham can't run again.... I hope that investigation
> > > > doesn't take forever.... by the time they close the file people will
> > > > have forgotten who he was.
> > >
> > > Outside of his district, for sure. San Diego still seems like a small
> > > town as far as politics go.
> >
> > But the depth of corruption around here is beyond belief. Amazingly
> > at the root of most of it are unions of municipal employees.
> > Unchecked greed knows no boundaries.
>
> That's because it's unchecked.

After looking at this and problems at the state level I have concluded
the root of the problem is campaign finance laws. We need to set
fairly low standards for getting on the ballot (maybe 10,000 signatures
or something) and then give all candidates equal money to conduct a
campaign. Probably destroy the 2 party system but I don't think that
is a bad thing.

ScottW

[MINe 109]

In article om>,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> MINe 109 wrote:
> > In article . com>,
> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >
> > > MINe 109 wrote:
> > > > In article om>,
> > > > "ScottW" > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > MINe 109 wrote:
> > > > > > In article <DgYBe.45108$up5.28602@lakeread02>,
> > > > > > "ScottW" > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > By whom? That isn't out there.... I think it was Miller.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Rove, Libby, etc. It doesn't matter where Rove learned what he
> > > > > > repeated
> > > > > > to Cooper.
> > > > >
> > > > > Legally it does... if he didn't mention her covert operative to
> > > > > cooper so if he didn't know it he was not legally bound from
> > > > > discussing it.
> > > >
> > > > That's the legal weasel: he didn't know she was covert. Ethically, he
> > > > should have checked first before IDing her to third parties.
> > >
> > > Those same ethics taken on more step should have prohibited Wilson
> > > from revealing he was acting at the direction of the CIA.
> >
> > Not at all. His was not a covert action.
>
> No.. but his op/ed led to his CIA wife who supposedly was a covert
> agent.

Blame the victim? I don't remember him mentioning his wife in the op-ed.
Since he had worked for the CIA in a similar capacity before and was one
of only a few people who knew Saddam and Africa, his name could have
come up from any number of sources had his wife not mentioned it. Nor
was his wife in a position to authorize such a trip.

The Rovian implication is that Wilson was hen-picked, whipped, weak.
Remember how Bush supporters demonized Mrs. Kerry?

And when did Niger become a prized travel destination?

> Did he really think his CIA employed wife would be ignored as people
> looked into how he got that assignment for the CIA?

Yes.

> > > > > I forget which dem has been vocal screaming for an indictment
> > > > > but I heard a spot where they found he had voted against the law
> > > > > as it was so vaguely written it was subject to abuse :)
> > > >
> > > > You have to go with the law you have... :-)
> > >
> > > Unfortunately.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Doesn't seem like a very good law. I have mixed feelings because of the
> > > > importance of protecting journalists and whistleblowers that must be
> > > > balanced against national security.
> > >
> > > Agreed, senate could be a lot more productive by looking at and
> > > repairing the law rather than the mudslinging going on.
> >
> > The recently proposed amendment (Dem) and counter-amendment (Repub) were
> > both partisan ploys that will rightly evaporate.
>
> Rightly? You referring to the strip Rove of his security clearance?

Yes, and the equally ridiculous "let terrorists choose" public statement
proposal. Rove may have violated a policy that's already in place, so
the Dems would be, what's the word, posturing with their proposal.

> I am referring to the need to rewrite the Intelligence Identities
> Protection Act.

Tougher? Weaker? In favor of the executive branch and a bigger stick to
hold over journalists? or a genuine deterrent against partisan leaks and
disinformation?

The law itself might not be the real problem.

> > Also on the list of improvements: journalist shield laws.
> >
> > > > Of course, the WH is on the wrong
> > > > side of both those concerns.
> > >
> > > Another interesting theory is that the CIA outed her for a couple
> > > reasons.
> > > 1) They were in a big battle with the WH over the crappy WMD intell.
> > > 2) They looked like idiots for accepting Plames advice to send Wilson.
> > > 3) The WH was about to clean house over there.
> > >
> > > So outing Valerie and sticking it on the WH provided some cover for the
> > > stupidity of commissioning Wilson for the WMD and deterred the
> > > housecleaning at the CIA.
> >
> > These assume Wilson was somehow unsuited for the job. That's WH spin and
> > typical of Rovian tactics to smear dissenting voices. Wilson's findings
> > concerning Niger and WMD were correct.
>
> No.. there were segments that were correct and segments that were not.
> The senate intelligence committee took a hard look at it... one of the
> biggest problems was he never filed a formal report.

He was debriefed. SOP. The correct part is: no yellowcake sale to Iraq.
Anything else is a quibble. He could have lunched on puppies while he
came to the correct conclusion and he'd still be right.

> > To suggest the CIA outed its own operative is Rovian up-is-downism. As
> > for crappy WMD intel, the WH simply ignored intelligence that did not
> > support its case for war.
>
> That position ignores years of Clinton administration conclusions
> that Iraq had or was developping WMDs. It wasn't just the WH that was
> screwed up.

Blame it on Clinton? Sorry, Bush's cronies have a paper trail: PNAC,
DSM, "Curveball," aluminum tubes, etc.

The UN inspectors had it right.

(snip)

<SD politics>

> > > But the depth of corruption around here is beyond belief. Amazingly
> > > at the root of most of it are unions of municipal employees.
> > > Unchecked greed knows no boundaries.
> >
> > That's because it's unchecked.
>
> After looking at this and problems at the state level I have concluded
> the root of the problem is campaign finance laws. We need to set
> fairly low standards for getting on the ballot (maybe 10,000 signatures
> or something) and then give all candidates equal money to conduct a
> campaign. Probably destroy the 2 party system but I don't think that
> is a bad thing.

How about an end to the term-limit experiment?

Less important, but maybe a return to the old "equal time" tv
requirement would be good.

Stephen

[ScottW]

"MINe 109" > wrote in message
...
> In article om>,
> "ScottW" > wrote:

>> > > Those same ethics taken on more step should have prohibited Wilson
>> > > from revealing he was acting at the direction of the CIA.
>> >
>> > Not at all. His was not a covert action.
>>
>> No.. but his op/ed led to his CIA wife who supposedly was a covert
>> agent.
>
> Blame the victim?

Not at all... just examining the potential root cause of the outing.

>I don't remember him mentioning his wife in the op-ed.

> Since he had worked for the CIA in a similar capacity before

Whoa... I haven't seen this... I've read the opposite..
he hadn't worked for the CIA and it was odd he got this job.

>and was one
> of only a few people who knew Saddam and Africa, his name could have
> come up from any number of sources had his wife not mentioned it. Nor
> was his wife in a position to authorize such a trip.

She didn't authorize... but she did recomend and he knew it and
lied about it.

>
> The Rovian implication is that Wilson was hen-picked, whipped, weak.
> Remember how Bush supporters demonized Mrs. Kerry?
>
> And when did Niger become a prized travel destination?
>
>> Did he really think his CIA employed wife would be ignored as people
>> looked into how he got that assignment for the CIA?
>
> Yes.

How convenient and naive of him.

>
>> > > > > I forget which dem has been vocal screaming for an indictment
>> > > > > but I heard a spot where they found he had voted against the law
>> > > > > as it was so vaguely written it was subject to abuse :)
>> > > >
>> > > > You have to go with the law you have... :-)
>> > >
>> > > Unfortunately.
>> > >
>> > > >
>> > > > Doesn't seem like a very good law. I have mixed feelings because of
>> > > > the
>> > > > importance of protecting journalists and whistleblowers that must
>> > > > be
>> > > > balanced against national security.
>> > >
>> > > Agreed, senate could be a lot more productive by looking at and
>> > > repairing the law rather than the mudslinging going on.
>> >
>> > The recently proposed amendment (Dem) and counter-amendment (Repub)
>> > were
>> > both partisan ploys that will rightly evaporate.
>>
>> Rightly? You referring to the strip Rove of his security clearance?
>
> Yes, and the equally ridiculous "let terrorists choose" public statement
> proposal. Rove may have violated a policy that's already in place, so
> the Dems would be, what's the word, posturing with their proposal.
>
>> I am referring to the need to rewrite the Intelligence Identities
>> Protection Act.
>
> Tougher? Weaker?

Clearer.

>In favor of the executive branch and a bigger stick to
> hold over journalists? or a genuine deterrent against partisan leaks and
> disinformation?

It is simply to vague and prone to abuse from both sides.

>
> The law itself might not be the real problem.
>
>> > Also on the list of improvements: journalist shield laws.
>> >
>> > > > Of course, the WH is on the wrong
>> > > > side of both those concerns.
>> > >
>> > > Another interesting theory is that the CIA outed her for a couple
>> > > reasons.
>> > > 1) They were in a big battle with the WH over the crappy WMD intell.
>> > > 2) They looked like idiots for accepting Plames advice to send
>> > > Wilson.
>> > > 3) The WH was about to clean house over there.
>> > >
>> > > So outing Valerie and sticking it on the WH provided some cover for
>> > > the
>> > > stupidity of commissioning Wilson for the WMD and deterred the
>> > > housecleaning at the CIA.
>> >
>> > These assume Wilson was somehow unsuited for the job. That's WH spin
>> > and
>> > typical of Rovian tactics to smear dissenting voices. Wilson's findings
>> > concerning Niger and WMD were correct.
>>
>> No.. there were segments that were correct and segments that were not.
>> The senate intelligence committee took a hard look at it... one of the
>> biggest problems was he never filed a formal report.
>
> He was debriefed. SOP. The correct part is: no yellowcake sale to Iraq.

And the 16 words never said there was a sale... they said they sought
uranium... a conclusion the SIC said Wilson report supported more than
refuted.

> Anything else is a quibble. He could have lunched on puppies while he
> came to the correct conclusion and he'd still be right.

This conclusion isn't in conflict with the 16 words. That's the crazy part
of this whole mess.

Politics is as nuts as some of the semantic arguments on usenet :).
>
>> > To suggest the CIA outed its own operative is Rovian up-is-downism. As
>> > for crappy WMD intel, the WH simply ignored intelligence that did not
>> > support its case for war.
>>
>> That position ignores years of Clinton administration conclusions
>> that Iraq had or was developping WMDs. It wasn't just the WH that was
>> screwed up.
>
> Blame it on Clinton?

I'm not blaming Clinton.. I am merely pointing out that there wasn't
any great change in the position of the intelligence community
with the change in administration.

>Sorry, Bush's cronies have a paper trail: PNAC,
> DSM, "Curveball," aluminum tubes, etc.

Look at the statements from the Dems under Clinton.
Lots of records of Saddam WMDs can't be tolerated.

>
> The UN inspectors had it right.

Had what right?... the most they could say was Saddam wasn't
cooperating and they couldn't find anything.
They never said they knew he didn't have anything.

>
> (snip)
>
> <SD politics>
>
>> > > But the depth of corruption around here is beyond belief. Amazingly
>> > > at the root of most of it are unions of municipal employees.
>> > > Unchecked greed knows no boundaries.
>> >
>> > That's because it's unchecked.
>>
>> After looking at this and problems at the state level I have concluded
>> the root of the problem is campaign finance laws. We need to set
>> fairly low standards for getting on the ballot (maybe 10,000 signatures
>> or something) and then give all candidates equal money to conduct a
>> campaign. Probably destroy the 2 party system but I don't think that
>> is a bad thing.
>
> How about an end to the term-limit experiment?

Actually.. I like term limits. There is the trade off of rookies in
Washington versus the corruption that comes with entrenchment.

I also don't like the House and Senate rules that put so much power
on Senior members. Term limits would eventually kill that.

>
> Less important, but maybe a return to the old "equal time" tv
> requirement would be good.

Definitely a start.. they tried some equal time cases against the talk
radio shows and it got tossed.

I was thinking a dedicated campaign channel... and no time on
commercial programming. Get away from the 30 second spots
that can do nothing but hypnotize.

ScottW

[MINe 109]

In article <F2yCe.46792$up5.10057@lakeread02>,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article om>,
> > "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> >> > > Those same ethics taken on more step should have prohibited Wilson
> >> > > from revealing he was acting at the direction of the CIA.
> >> >
> >> > Not at all. His was not a covert action.
> >>
> >> No.. but his op/ed led to his CIA wife who supposedly was a covert
> >> agent.
> >
> > Blame the victim?
>
> Not at all... just examining the potential root cause of the outing.

Could it be someone didn't like what he was saying and wished to
discredit him?

> >I don't remember him mentioning his wife in the op-ed.
>
> > Since he had worked for the CIA in a similar capacity before
>
> Whoa... I haven't seen this... I've read the opposite..
> he hadn't worked for the CIA and it was odd he got this job.

There was a previous trip in 1999; he may have known the area from his
State department postings, including Ambassador to Gabon, and had a
personal relationship with the Nigerian head of mining, a good person to
know if one were investigating Nigerian mining activity.

> >and was one
> > of only a few people who knew Saddam and Africa, his name could have
> > come up from any number of sources had his wife not mentioned it. Nor
> > was his wife in a position to authorize such a trip.
>
> She didn't authorize... but she did recomend and he knew it and
> lied about it.

He may have wished to leave her out of public discussion at that point
or was unaware she had put his name out, perhaps because the request
came from a third party. Fortunately, my views on this matter don't
depend on Wilson's impeccability.

> > The Rovian implication is that Wilson was hen-picked, whipped, weak.
> > Remember how Bush supporters demonized Mrs. Kerry?
> >
> > And when did Niger become a prized travel destination?
> >
> >> Did he really think his CIA employed wife would be ignored as people
> >> looked into how he got that assignment for the CIA?
> >
> > Yes.
>
> How convenient and naive of him.

Too bad for him, eh? Those are the risks a whistle-blower takes.

> >> > > > > I forget which dem has been vocal screaming for an indictment
> >> > > > > but I heard a spot where they found he had voted against the law
> >> > > > > as it was so vaguely written it was subject to abuse :)
> >> > > >
> >> > > > You have to go with the law you have... :-)
> >> > >
> >> > > Unfortunately.
> >> > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Doesn't seem like a very good law. I have mixed feelings because of
> >> > > > the
> >> > > > importance of protecting journalists and whistleblowers that must
> >> > > > be
> >> > > > balanced against national security.
> >> > >
> >> > > Agreed, senate could be a lot more productive by looking at and
> >> > > repairing the law rather than the mudslinging going on.
> >> >
> >> > The recently proposed amendment (Dem) and counter-amendment (Repub)
> >> > were
> >> > both partisan ploys that will rightly evaporate.
> >>
> >> Rightly? You referring to the strip Rove of his security clearance?
> >
> > Yes, and the equally ridiculous "let terrorists choose" public statement
> > proposal. Rove may have violated a policy that's already in place, so
> > the Dems would be, what's the word, posturing with their proposal.
> >
> >> I am referring to the need to rewrite the Intelligence Identities
> >> Protection Act.
> >
> > Tougher? Weaker?
>
> Clearer.

Clearer is generally better.

> >In favor of the executive branch and a bigger stick to
> > hold over journalists? or a genuine deterrent against partisan leaks and
> > disinformation?
>
> It is simply to vague and prone to abuse from both sides.

I'd suggest that there are WH rules and regulations that would take care
if this problem were they to be invoked.

> > The law itself might not be the real problem.
> >
> >> > Also on the list of improvements: journalist shield laws.
> >> >
> >> > > > Of course, the WH is on the wrong
> >> > > > side of both those concerns.
> >> > >
> >> > > Another interesting theory is that the CIA outed her for a couple
> >> > > reasons.
> >> > > 1) They were in a big battle with the WH over the crappy WMD intell.
> >> > > 2) They looked like idiots for accepting Plames advice to send
> >> > > Wilson.
> >> > > 3) The WH was about to clean house over there.
> >> > >
> >> > > So outing Valerie and sticking it on the WH provided some cover for
> >> > > the
> >> > > stupidity of commissioning Wilson for the WMD and deterred the
> >> > > housecleaning at the CIA.
> >> >
> >> > These assume Wilson was somehow unsuited for the job. That's WH spin
> >> > and
> >> > typical of Rovian tactics to smear dissenting voices. Wilson's findings
> >> > concerning Niger and WMD were correct.
> >>
> >> No.. there were segments that were correct and segments that were not.
> >> The senate intelligence committee took a hard look at it... one of the
> >> biggest problems was he never filed a formal report.
> >
> > He was debriefed. SOP. The correct part is: no yellowcake sale to Iraq.
>
> And the 16 words never said there was a sale... they said they sought
> uranium... a conclusion the SIC said Wilson report supported more than
> refuted.

"Sought" is such a big word. The WH backed away from that claim. I
wonder when their backers will as well.

Of course, it doesn't matter if Iraq had yellowcake or not because Iraq
had no way to process it into weapons-grade material.

> > Anything else is a quibble. He could have lunched on puppies while he
> > came to the correct conclusion and he'd still be right.
>
> This conclusion isn't in conflict with the 16 words. That's the crazy part
> of this whole mess.
>
> Politics is as nuts as some of the semantic arguments on usenet :).

Worse, because can actually affect lives!

> >> > To suggest the CIA outed its own operative is Rovian up-is-downism. As
> >> > for crappy WMD intel, the WH simply ignored intelligence that did not
> >> > support its case for war.
> >>
> >> That position ignores years of Clinton administration conclusions
> >> that Iraq had or was developping WMDs. It wasn't just the WH that was
> >> screwed up.
> >
> > Blame it on Clinton?
>
> I'm not blaming Clinton.. I am merely pointing out that there wasn't
> any great change in the position of the intelligence community
> with the change in administration.

Well, there was a big change on one subject...

> >Sorry, Bush's cronies have a paper trail: PNAC,
> > DSM, "Curveball," aluminum tubes, etc.
>
> Look at the statements from the Dems under Clinton.
> Lots of records of Saddam WMDs can't be tolerated.

Where are they now?

> > The UN inspectors had it right.
>
> Had what right?... the most they could say was Saddam wasn't
> cooperating and they couldn't find anything.
> They never said they knew he didn't have anything.

That's not right. There weren't any operating programs, nor have any
been found subsequently.

> > (snip)
> >
> > <SD politics>
> >
> >> > > But the depth of corruption around here is beyond belief. Amazingly
> >> > > at the root of most of it are unions of municipal employees.
> >> > > Unchecked greed knows no boundaries.
> >> >
> >> > That's because it's unchecked.
> >>
> >> After looking at this and problems at the state level I have concluded
> >> the root of the problem is campaign finance laws. We need to set
> >> fairly low standards for getting on the ballot (maybe 10,000 signatures
> >> or something) and then give all candidates equal money to conduct a
> >> campaign. Probably destroy the 2 party system but I don't think that
> >> is a bad thing.
> >
> > How about an end to the term-limit experiment?
>
> Actually.. I like term limits. There is the trade off of rookies in
> Washington versus the corruption that comes with entrenchment.
>
> I also don't like the House and Senate rules that put so much power
> on Senior members. Term limits would eventually kill that.

If they're all rookies, no one knows how to get stuff done! If we had a
professional civil service like in Britain, that would be one thing.
What we have is an enormously corrupt lobbying industry. In Texas, the
Lege is so ill-paid they'd probably starve without the free lunches.

> > Less important, but maybe a return to the old "equal time" tv
> > requirement would be good.
>
> Definitely a start.. they tried some equal time cases against the talk
> radio shows and it got tossed.

That would have to be worked out.

> I was thinking a dedicated campaign channel... and no time on
> commercial programming. Get away from the 30 second spots
> that can do nothing but hypnotize.

Sorta like C-SPAN or cable access. Not a bad idea, although the problem
remains that the audience that needs to be reached is watching "Big
Brother 6" on another channel.

Stephen

[ScottW]

MINe 109 wrote:
> In article <F2yCe.46792$up5.10057@lakeread02>,
> "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> > "MINe 109" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > In article om>,
> > > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >
> > >> > > Those same ethics taken on more step should have prohibited Wilson
> > >> > > from revealing he was acting at the direction of the CIA.
> > >> >
> > >> > Not at all. His was not a covert action.
> > >>
> > >> No.. but his op/ed led to his CIA wife who supposedly was a covert
> > >> agent.
> > >
> > > Blame the victim?
> >
> > Not at all... just examining the potential root cause of the outing.
>
> Could it be someone didn't like what he was saying and wished to
> discredit him?

Except I am at a loss as to outing his wife discredits him or the
op/ed.
Its a knit. The outing itself has become far bigger than the original
piece.
>
> > >I don't remember him mentioning his wife in the op-ed.
> >
> > > Since he had worked for the CIA in a similar capacity before
> >
> > Whoa... I haven't seen this... I've read the opposite..
> > he hadn't worked for the CIA and it was odd he got this job.
>
> There was a previous trip in 1999;

For the CIA or the State Dept?

> he may have known the area from his
> State department postings, including Ambassador to Gabon, and had a
> personal relationship with the Nigerian head of mining, a good person to
> know if one were investigating Nigerian mining activity.
>
> > >and was one
> > > of only a few people who knew Saddam and Africa, his name could have
> > > come up from any number of sources had his wife not mentioned it. Nor
> > > was his wife in a position to authorize such a trip.
> >
> > She didn't authorize... but she did recomend and he knew it and
> > lied about it.
>
> He may have wished to leave her out of public discussion at that point
> or was unaware she had put his name out, perhaps because the request
> came from a third party. Fortunately, my views on this matter don't
> depend on Wilson's impeccability.

Neither do mine... but I think you should at least consider
the possibilities.

>
> > > The Rovian implication is that Wilson was hen-picked, whipped, weak.
> > > Remember how Bush supporters demonized Mrs. Kerry?
> > >
> > > And when did Niger become a prized travel destination?
> > >
> > >> Did he really think his CIA employed wife would be ignored as people
> > >> looked into how he got that assignment for the CIA?
> > >
> > > Yes.
> >
> > How convenient and naive of him.
>
> Too bad for him, eh? Those are the risks a whistle-blower takes.

He shouldn't have declared he went at the request of the CIA.
He could have just said the government in his op/ed.
And he got what he wanted... CIA did say they made a mistake
on the info that went into Bush's speech.

>
> > >> > > > > I forget which dem has been vocal screaming for an indictment
> > >> > > > > but I heard a spot where they found he had voted against the law
> > >> > > > > as it was so vaguely written it was subject to abuse :)
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > You have to go with the law you have... :-)
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Unfortunately.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Doesn't seem like a very good law. I have mixed feelings because of
> > >> > > > the
> > >> > > > importance of protecting journalists and whistleblowers that must
> > >> > > > be
> > >> > > > balanced against national security.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Agreed, senate could be a lot more productive by looking at and
> > >> > > repairing the law rather than the mudslinging going on.
> > >> >
> > >> > The recently proposed amendment (Dem) and counter-amendment (Repub)
> > >> > were
> > >> > both partisan ploys that will rightly evaporate.
> > >>
> > >> Rightly? You referring to the strip Rove of his security clearance?
> > >
> > > Yes, and the equally ridiculous "let terrorists choose" public statement
> > > proposal. Rove may have violated a policy that's already in place, so
> > > the Dems would be, what's the word, posturing with their proposal.
> > >
> > >> I am referring to the need to rewrite the Intelligence Identities
> > >> Protection Act.
> > >
> > > Tougher? Weaker?
> >
> > Clearer.
>
> Clearer is generally better.

I heard today the law requires the covert agent to have been out of
country
on assignment within the last 5 years. Plame returned from her last
covert out of country assignment in '97 making it 6 years.
I'll bet the SP has moved beyond the outing and is working on
obstruction angles.
>
> > >In favor of the executive branch and a bigger stick to
> > > hold over journalists? or a genuine deterrent against partisan leaks and
> > > disinformation?
> >
> > It is simply to vague and prone to abuse from both sides.
>
> I'd suggest that there are WH rules and regulations that would take care
> if this problem were they to be invoked.

WH rules? WH rules aren't law.
>
> > > The law itself might not be the real problem.
> > >
> > >> > Also on the list of improvements: journalist shield laws.
> > >> >
> > >> > > > Of course, the WH is on the wrong
> > >> > > > side of both those concerns.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Another interesting theory is that the CIA outed her for a couple
> > >> > > reasons.
> > >> > > 1) They were in a big battle with the WH over the crappy WMD intell.
> > >> > > 2) They looked like idiots for accepting Plames advice to send
> > >> > > Wilson.
> > >> > > 3) The WH was about to clean house over there.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > So outing Valerie and sticking it on the WH provided some cover for
> > >> > > the
> > >> > > stupidity of commissioning Wilson for the WMD and deterred the
> > >> > > housecleaning at the CIA.
> > >> >
> > >> > These assume Wilson was somehow unsuited for the job. That's WH spin
> > >> > and
> > >> > typical of Rovian tactics to smear dissenting voices. Wilson's findings
> > >> > concerning Niger and WMD were correct.
> > >>
> > >> No.. there were segments that were correct and segments that were not.
> > >> The senate intelligence committee took a hard look at it... one of the
> > >> biggest problems was he never filed a formal report.
> > >
> > > He was debriefed. SOP. The correct part is: no yellowcake sale to Iraq.
> >
> > And the 16 words never said there was a sale... they said they sought
> > uranium... a conclusion the SIC said Wilson report supported more than
> > refuted.
>
> "Sought" is such a big word. The WH backed away from that claim. I
> wonder when their backers will as well.
>
> Of course, it doesn't matter if Iraq had yellowcake or not because Iraq
> had no way to process it into weapons-grade material.
>
> > > Anything else is a quibble. He could have lunched on puppies while he
> > > came to the correct conclusion and he'd still be right.
> >
> > This conclusion isn't in conflict with the 16 words. That's the crazy part
> > of this whole mess.
> >
> > Politics is as nuts as some of the semantic arguments on usenet :).
>
> Worse, because can actually affect lives!
>
> > >> > To suggest the CIA outed its own operative is Rovian up-is-downism. As
> > >> > for crappy WMD intel, the WH simply ignored intelligence that did not
> > >> > support its case for war.
> > >>
> > >> That position ignores years of Clinton administration conclusions
> > >> that Iraq had or was developping WMDs. It wasn't just the WH that was
> > >> screwed up.
> > >
> > > Blame it on Clinton?
> >
> > I'm not blaming Clinton.. I am merely pointing out that there wasn't
> > any great change in the position of the intelligence community
> > with the change in administration.
>
> Well, there was a big change on one subject...
>
> > >Sorry, Bush's cronies have a paper trail: PNAC,
> > > DSM, "Curveball," aluminum tubes, etc.
> >
> > Look at the statements from the Dems under Clinton.
> > Lots of records of Saddam WMDs can't be tolerated.
>
> Where are they now?

Here's a chronology of Kerry statements. There are many others.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1074054/posts
>
> > > The UN inspectors had it right.
> >
> > Had what right?... the most they could say was Saddam wasn't
> > cooperating and they couldn't find anything.
> > They never said they knew he didn't have anything.
>
> That's not right. There weren't any operating programs, nor have any
> been found subsequently.

But the inspectors never said that.

Read this site.. it's excellent with lots of docs.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB80/

If find this one interesting...its a UN report just before the
inspectors pulled out due to Iraqi noncooperation on Dec. 16, '98.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB80/wmd08.pdf

You can even see the forged Niger docs here.

and Hans Blix first report 1/27/2003 after inspections resumed.

Even then he has issues.

http://tinyurl.com/aztcn


>
> > > (snip)
> > >
> > > <SD politics>
> > >
> > >> > > But the depth of corruption around here is beyond belief. Amazingly
> > >> > > at the root of most of it are unions of municipal employees.
> > >> > > Unchecked greed knows no boundaries.
> > >> >
> > >> > That's because it's unchecked.
> > >>
> > >> After looking at this and problems at the state level I have concluded
> > >> the root of the problem is campaign finance laws. We need to set
> > >> fairly low standards for getting on the ballot (maybe 10,000 signatures
> > >> or something) and then give all candidates equal money to conduct a
> > >> campaign. Probably destroy the 2 party system but I don't think that
> > >> is a bad thing.
> > >
> > > How about an end to the term-limit experiment?
> >
> > Actually.. I like term limits. There is the trade off of rookies in
> > Washington versus the corruption that comes with entrenchment.
> >
> > I also don't like the House and Senate rules that put so much power
> > on Senior members. Term limits would eventually kill that.
>
> If they're all rookies, no one knows how to get stuff done!

I think a large part of rookies not being able to accomplish
anything comes from the rules putting power in Sr. members.
All senators are elected equal IMO and no rules should
dictate otherwise.

> If we had a
> professional civil service like in Britain, that would be one thing.
> What we have is an enormously corrupt lobbying industry. In Texas, the
> Lege is so ill-paid they'd probably starve without the free lunches.
>
> > > Less important, but maybe a return to the old "equal time" tv
> > > requirement would be good.
> >
> > Definitely a start.. they tried some equal time cases against the talk
> > radio shows and it got tossed.
>
> That would have to be worked out.
>
> > I was thinking a dedicated campaign channel... and no time on
> > commercial programming. Get away from the 30 second spots
> > that can do nothing but hypnotize.
>
> Sorta like C-SPAN or cable access. Not a bad idea,

exactly.. at least the people who want to understand the candidates
will have opportunity.


> although the problem
> remains that the audience that needs to be reached is watching "Big
> Brother 6" on another channel.

and if they form their opinion based on only campaign adds?
and even worse... based on which adds they see the most?

Last election in Ca. not a single state legislature district
changed party control and not a single incumbent lost.
I hate to say it but the art of mass manipulation has
moved beyond most peoples ability to recognize and resist it.

ScottW

[MINe 109]

In article m>,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> MINe 109 wrote:
> > In article <F2yCe.46792$up5.10057@lakeread02>,
> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >
> > > "MINe 109" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > In article om>,
> > > > "ScottW" > wrote:
> > >
> > > >> > > Those same ethics taken on more step should have prohibited
> > > >> > > Wilson
> > > >> > > from revealing he was acting at the direction of the CIA.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Not at all. His was not a covert action.
> > > >>
> > > >> No.. but his op/ed led to his CIA wife who supposedly was a covert
> > > >> agent.
> > > >
> > > > Blame the victim?
> > >
> > > Not at all... just examining the potential root cause of the outing.
> >
> > Could it be someone didn't like what he was saying and wished to
> > discredit him?
>
> Except I am at a loss as to outing his wife discredits him or the
> op/ed.

It doesn't. It punishes him by attacking his family. It smears him (not
"discredits") by portraying him as weak.

> Its a knit. The outing itself has become far bigger than the original
> piece.

That's a mistake. The Democrats are showing the kind of political
instincts that lost them the last election. They showed so much promise
with that third-rail thing.

> > > >I don't remember him mentioning his wife in the op-ed.
> > >
> > > > Since he had worked for the CIA in a similar capacity before
> > >
> > > Whoa... I haven't seen this... I've read the opposite..
> > > he hadn't worked for the CIA and it was odd he got this job.
> >
> > There was a previous trip in 1999;
>
> For the CIA or the State Dept?

CIA.

> > he may have known the area from his
> > State department postings, including Ambassador to Gabon, and had a
> > personal relationship with the Nigerian head of mining, a good person to
> > know if one were investigating Nigerian mining activity.
> >
> > > >and was one
> > > > of only a few people who knew Saddam and Africa, his name could have
> > > > come up from any number of sources had his wife not mentioned it. Nor
> > > > was his wife in a position to authorize such a trip.
> > >
> > > She didn't authorize... but she did recomend and he knew it and
> > > lied about it.
> >
> > He may have wished to leave her out of public discussion at that point
> > or was unaware she had put his name out, perhaps because the request
> > came from a third party. Fortunately, my views on this matter don't
> > depend on Wilson's impeccability.
>
> Neither do mine... but I think you should at least consider
> the possibilities.

He lied, was mistaken, didn't know. And what if she did suggest him and
he knew it? No difference.

> > > > The Rovian implication is that Wilson was hen-picked, whipped, weak.
> > > > Remember how Bush supporters demonized Mrs. Kerry?
> > > >
> > > > And when did Niger become a prized travel destination?
> > > >
> > > >> Did he really think his CIA employed wife would be ignored as people
> > > >> looked into how he got that assignment for the CIA?
> > > >
> > > > Yes.
> > >
> > > How convenient and naive of him.
> >
> > Too bad for him, eh? Those are the risks a whistle-blower takes.
>
> He shouldn't have declared he went at the request of the CIA.
> He could have just said the government in his op/ed.
> And he got what he wanted... CIA did say they made a mistake
> on the info that went into Bush's speech.

They also said information that did not support the White House's views
was simply ignored. It's hard to believe a guileless Bush White House
was led astray by the CIA after going to so much trouble to create their
own outside sources of "intelligence."

<snip>

> I heard today the law requires the covert agent to have been out of
> country
> on assignment within the last 5 years. Plame returned from her last
> covert out of country assignment in '97 making it 6 years.
> I'll bet the SP has moved beyond the outing and is working on
> obstruction angles.

Probably so.

> > > >In favor of the executive branch and a bigger stick to
> > > > hold over journalists? or a genuine deterrent against partisan leaks
> > > > and
> > > > disinformation?
> > >
> > > It is simply to vague and prone to abuse from both sides.
> >
> > I'd suggest that there are WH rules and regulations that would take care
> > if this problem were they to be invoked.
>
> WH rules? WH rules aren't law.

Rove's security clearance has some fine print, hence the public calls
for it to be revoked.

It's a more complicated question when you consider the DC culture of
information control and access. Journalists who do not cooperate or pay
off in some way to what they're leaked run the risk of losing access. On
a less important scale, think of the NYT "Letter from the White House"
or whatever that Elizabeth Bushmiller column is called. Sure, she gets
access, but on the seeming condition that nothing substantive comes from
it.

<snip>

> > > >> > To suggest the CIA outed its own operative is Rovian up-is-downism.
> > > >> > As
> > > >> > for crappy WMD intel, the WH simply ignored intelligence that did
> > > >> > not
> > > >> > support its case for war.
> > > >>
> > > >> That position ignores years of Clinton administration conclusions
> > > >> that Iraq had or was developping WMDs. It wasn't just the WH that
> > > >> was
> > > >> screwed up.
> > > >
> > > > Blame it on Clinton?
> > >
> > > I'm not blaming Clinton.. I am merely pointing out that there wasn't
> > > any great change in the position of the intelligence community
> > > with the change in administration.
> >
> > Well, there was a big change on one subject...
> >
> > > >Sorry, Bush's cronies have a paper trail: PNAC,
> > > > DSM, "Curveball," aluminum tubes, etc.
> > >
> > > Look at the statements from the Dems under Clinton.
> > > Lots of records of Saddam WMDs can't be tolerated.
> >
> > Where are they now?
>
> Here's a chronology of Kerry statements. There are many others.

> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1074054/posts

That's changing the subject: Kerry does not hold my skepticism by proxy.

> > > > The UN inspectors had it right.
> > >
> > > Had what right?... the most they could say was Saddam wasn't
> > > cooperating and they couldn't find anything.
> > > They never said they knew he didn't have anything.
> >
> > That's not right. There weren't any operating programs, nor have any
> > been found subsequently.
>
> But the inspectors never said that.
>
> Read this site.. it's excellent with lots of docs.
>
> http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB80/
>
> If find this one interesting...its a UN report just before the
> inspectors pulled out due to Iraqi noncooperation on Dec. 16, '98.
>
> http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB80/wmd08.pdf
>
> You can even see the forged Niger docs here.

Seen 'em already! Maybe Italian intelligence will help us out on that
one. :-)

> and Hans Blix first report 1/27/2003 after inspections resumed.
>
> Even then he has issues.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/aztcn

These seem such small potatoes now: inventory problems, mostly, and not
the feared tip of the iceberg.

Here's David Kay:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1160916,00.html

> > > > (snip)
> > > >
> > > > <SD politics>
> > > >
> > > >> > > But the depth of corruption around here is beyond belief.
> > > >> > > Amazingly
> > > >> > > at the root of most of it are unions of municipal employees.
> > > >> > > Unchecked greed knows no boundaries.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > That's because it's unchecked.
> > > >>
> > > >> After looking at this and problems at the state level I have
> > > >> concluded
> > > >> the root of the problem is campaign finance laws. We need to set
> > > >> fairly low standards for getting on the ballot (maybe 10,000
> > > >> signatures
> > > >> or something) and then give all candidates equal money to conduct a
> > > >> campaign. Probably destroy the 2 party system but I don't think that
> > > >> is a bad thing.
> > > >
> > > > How about an end to the term-limit experiment?
> > >
> > > Actually.. I like term limits. There is the trade off of rookies in
> > > Washington versus the corruption that comes with entrenchment.
> > >
> > > I also don't like the House and Senate rules that put so much power
> > > on Senior members. Term limits would eventually kill that.
> >
> > If they're all rookies, no one knows how to get stuff done!
>
> I think a large part of rookies not being able to accomplish
> anything comes from the rules putting power in Sr. members.
> All senators are elected equal IMO and no rules should
> dictate otherwise.

The two-term representatives aren't learning fast enough in CA. Of
course, you could do like TX and meet every other year to give them time
to study up.

<snip>

> > > I was thinking a dedicated campaign channel... and no time on
> > > commercial programming. Get away from the 30 second spots
> > > that can do nothing but hypnotize.
> >
> > Sorta like C-SPAN or cable access. Not a bad idea,
>
> exactly.. at least the people who want to understand the candidates
> will have opportunity.

Some people would actually watch.

> > although the problem
> > remains that the audience that needs to be reached is watching "Big
> > Brother 6" on another channel.
>
> and if they form their opinion based on only campaign adds?
> and even worse... based on which adds they see the most?

Once the money's in place, sometimes the opposition doesn't show for
fear of spending big to lose.

> Last election in Ca. not a single state legislature district
> changed party control and not a single incumbent lost.
> I hate to say it but the art of mass manipulation has
> moved beyond most peoples ability to recognize and resist it.

That's a big problem. Your gov was on the right track when he floated
the idea of redistricting proportionally. While I despised DeLay's
unprecedented redistricting here in Texas, I wasn't happy with the
previous goal of preserving incumbency.

Stephen

[ScottW]

MINe 109 wrote:
> In article m>,

(shortening the hashed over :) )
> "ScottW" > wrote:
> >
> > WH rules? WH rules aren't law.
>
> Rove's security clearance has some fine print, hence the public calls
> for it to be revoked.

Ok, I'm sure there are some laws governing the granting and revocation
of
clearance. I've never heard of the house or senate acting on one
before.
>
> It's a more complicated question when you consider the DC culture of
> information control and access. Journalists who do not cooperate or pay
> off in some way to what they're leaked run the risk of losing access. On
> a less important scale, think of the NYT "Letter from the White House"
> or whatever that Elizabeth Bushmiller column is called. Sure, she gets
> access, but on the seeming condition that nothing substantive comes from
> it.

That whole system sucks. If I were president :).. no one in the WH
would talk to the press except through official press briefings and
question/answer sessions.
Questions could always be submitted to the press secretary.

Access to press briefings would be by lottery and transcripts made
available immediately.

I'm sure the press would scream bloody murder over the lack of access
(no scoops) but that wouldn't be true if they knew what questions to
submit to the press secretary. No more of this corrupting the press by
exchanging access for favorable treatment.
And absolutely no anonymous sources.

>
> <snip>
>
> > > > >> > To suggest the CIA outed its own operative is Rovian up-is-downism.
> > > > >> > As
> > > > >> > for crappy WMD intel, the WH simply ignored intelligence that did
> > > > >> > not
> > > > >> > support its case for war.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> That position ignores years of Clinton administration conclusions
> > > > >> that Iraq had or was developping WMDs. It wasn't just the WH that
> > > > >> was
> > > > >> screwed up.
> > > > >
> > > > > Blame it on Clinton?
> > > >
> > > > I'm not blaming Clinton.. I am merely pointing out that there wasn't
> > > > any great change in the position of the intelligence community
> > > > with the change in administration.
> > >
> > > Well, there was a big change on one subject...
> > >
> > > > >Sorry, Bush's cronies have a paper trail: PNAC,
> > > > > DSM, "Curveball," aluminum tubes, etc.
> > > >
> > > > Look at the statements from the Dems under Clinton.
> > > > Lots of records of Saddam WMDs can't be tolerated.
> > >
> > > Where are they now?

You mean WMDs? Destroyed or maybe a few trucked to Syria.
I thought you meant democratic statements.

> >
> > Here's a chronology of Kerry statements. There are many others.
>
> > http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1074054/posts
>
> That's changing the subject: Kerry does not hold my skepticism by proxy.

I'm not following you.

>
> > > > > The UN inspectors had it right.
> > > >
> > > > Had what right?... the most they could say was Saddam wasn't
> > > > cooperating and they couldn't find anything.
> > > > They never said they knew he didn't have anything.
> > >
> > > That's not right. There weren't any operating programs, nor have any
> > > been found subsequently.
> >
> > But the inspectors never said that.
> >
> > Read this site.. it's excellent with lots of docs.
> >
> > http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB80/
> >
> > If find this one interesting...its a UN report just before the
> > inspectors pulled out due to Iraqi noncooperation on Dec. 16, '98.
> >
> > http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB80/wmd08.pdf
> >
> > You can even see the forged Niger docs here.
>
> Seen 'em already! Maybe Italian intelligence will help us out on that
> one. :-)
>
> > and Hans Blix first report 1/27/2003 after inspections resumed.
> >
> > Even then he has issues.
> >
> > http://tinyurl.com/aztcn
>
> These seem such small potatoes now: inventory problems, mostly, and not
> the feared tip of the iceberg.

The biggest were the lack of surveillance flights allowed and the
general hide
and seek they felt Iraqi officials were playing.

I felt all along that the war justification could have just as well
been made
on 3 basis rather than 1.
1) WMD danger
2) Humanitarian
3) Anti-terrorism

Even if 1 didn't pan out.. 2 and 3 remain legit.

>
> Here's David Kay:
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1160916,00.html

Yup... hindsight.. he even says he had it all wrong.
All he wants is Bush to admit it.
I don't know why the don't... but an admission of error seems kind of
small potatoes now as well.

>
> > > > > (snip)
> > > > >
> > > > > <SD politics>
> > > > >
> > > > >> > > But the depth of corruption around here is beyond belief.
> > > > >> > > Amazingly
> > > > >> > > at the root of most of it are unions of municipal employees.
> > > > >> > > Unchecked greed knows no boundaries.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > That's because it's unchecked.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> After looking at this and problems at the state level I have
> > > > >> concluded
> > > > >> the root of the problem is campaign finance laws. We need to set
> > > > >> fairly low standards for getting on the ballot (maybe 10,000
> > > > >> signatures
> > > > >> or something) and then give all candidates equal money to conduct a
> > > > >> campaign. Probably destroy the 2 party system but I don't think that
> > > > >> is a bad thing.
> > > > >
> > > > > How about an end to the term-limit experiment?
> > > >
> > > > Actually.. I like term limits. There is the trade off of rookies in
> > > > Washington versus the corruption that comes with entrenchment.
> > > >
> > > > I also don't like the House and Senate rules that put so much power
> > > > on Senior members. Term limits would eventually kill that.
> > >
> > > If they're all rookies, no one knows how to get stuff done!
> >
> > I think a large part of rookies not being able to accomplish
> > anything comes from the rules putting power in Sr. members.
> > All senators are elected equal IMO and no rules should
> > dictate otherwise.
>
> The two-term representatives aren't learning fast enough in CA. Of
> course, you could do like TX and meet every other year to give them time
> to study up.

Arny was talking up a part time legislature for awhile. He dropped
that.

>
> <snip>
>
> > > > I was thinking a dedicated campaign channel... and no time on
> > > > commercial programming. Get away from the 30 second spots
> > > > that can do nothing but hypnotize.
> > >
> > > Sorta like C-SPAN or cable access. Not a bad idea,
> >
> > exactly.. at least the people who want to understand the candidates
> > will have opportunity.
>
> Some people would actually watch.

I just watched my second SD mayoral race debate and I don't even get to
vote..I'm outside city limits. 6 participants. Biggest problem is there
is no freedom to let the candidates go at each other.
I guess we have to wait for the runoff that is expected. None of them
will
win outright with more than 50%.

>
> > > although the problem
> > > remains that the audience that needs to be reached is watching "Big
> > > Brother 6" on another channel.
> >
> > and if they form their opinion based on only campaign adds?
> > and even worse... based on which adds they see the most?
>
> Once the money's in place, sometimes the opposition doesn't show for
> fear of spending big to lose.

Very true.... Grey Davis went down with his war chest largely unspent.

>
> > Last election in Ca. not a single state legislature district
> > changed party control and not a single incumbent lost.
> > I hate to say it but the art of mass manipulation has
> > moved beyond most peoples ability to recognize and resist it.
>
> That's a big problem. Your gov was on the right track when he floated
> the idea of redistricting proportionally.

There will be a referendum on the ballot this fall. Now the dems are
panicing
and they're talking about a comprimise and then Arny will pull his
support from the initiative. I think it would be a hoot if they did
comprimise and the initiative still passed. These clowns think the
voters are so easily controlled.

> While I despised DeLay's
> unprecedented redistricting here in Texas, I wasn't happy with the
> previous goal of preserving incumbency.

You should see some of the congressional districts in Ca. They call
the Dryers the dumbbell cuz it has a 200 yard wide strip connecting two
non-contiguous Republican communities. Really absurd.

ScottW

[MINe 109]

In article . com>,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> MINe 109 wrote:
> > In article m>,
>
> (shortening the hashed over :) )
> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> > >
> > > WH rules? WH rules aren't law.
> >
> > Rove's security clearance has some fine print, hence the public calls
> > for it to be revoked.
>
> Ok, I'm sure there are some laws governing the granting and revocation
> of clearance. I've never heard of the house or senate acting on one
> before.

Isn't that an executive branch concern?

> > It's a more complicated question when you consider the DC culture of
> > information control and access. Journalists who do not cooperate or pay
> > off in some way to what they're leaked run the risk of losing access. On
> > a less important scale, think of the NYT "Letter from the White House"
> > or whatever that Elizabeth Bushmiller column is called. Sure, she gets
> > access, but on the seeming condition that nothing substantive comes from
> > it.
>
> That whole system sucks.

Now you're talking!

> If I were president :).. no one in the WH
> would talk to the press except through official press briefings and
> question/answer sessions.
> Questions could always be submitted to the press secretary.
>
> Access to press briefings would be by lottery and transcripts made
> available immediately.
>
> I'm sure the press would scream bloody murder over the lack of access
> (no scoops) but that wouldn't be true if they knew what questions to
> submit to the press secretary. No more of this corrupting the press by
> exchanging access for favorable treatment.
> And absolutely no anonymous sources.

They'd be less likely to scream if assured of guaranteed regular
opportunities to ask questions and get actual answers, something like
the British "question time" but with press. "Press conferences" we used
to call them.

> > <snip>
> >
> > > > > >> > To suggest the CIA outed its own operative is Rovian
> > > > > >> > up-is-downism.
> > > > > >> > As
> > > > > >> > for crappy WMD intel, the WH simply ignored intelligence that
> > > > > >> > did
> > > > > >> > not
> > > > > >> > support its case for war.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> That position ignores years of Clinton administration
> > > > > >> conclusions
> > > > > >> that Iraq had or was developping WMDs. It wasn't just the WH
> > > > > >> that
> > > > > >> was
> > > > > >> screwed up.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Blame it on Clinton?
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm not blaming Clinton.. I am merely pointing out that there wasn't
> > > > > any great change in the position of the intelligence community
> > > > > with the change in administration.
> > > >
> > > > Well, there was a big change on one subject...
> > > >
> > > > > >Sorry, Bush's cronies have a paper trail: PNAC,
> > > > > > DSM, "Curveball," aluminum tubes, etc.
> > > > >
> > > > > Look at the statements from the Dems under Clinton.
> > > > > Lots of records of Saddam WMDs can't be tolerated.
> > > >
> > > > Where are they now?
>
> You mean WMDs? Destroyed or maybe a few trucked to Syria.
> I thought you meant democratic statements.

WMD existed as old programs long abandoned, book-keeping chimera
(unaccounted for overcounts, etc), fake programs designed to keep Saddam
money flowing to scientists who feared reprisal if they didn't produce
"results," and dual use facilities.

> > > Here's a chronology of Kerry statements. There are many others.
> >
> > > http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1074054/posts
> >
> > That's changing the subject: Kerry does not hold my skepticism by proxy.
>
> I'm not following you.

I wasn't talking about Demo WMD statements, so it seemed a change of
subject.

> > > > > > The UN inspectors had it right.
> > > > >
> > > > > Had what right?... the most they could say was Saddam wasn't
> > > > > cooperating and they couldn't find anything.
> > > > > They never said they knew he didn't have anything.
> > > >
> > > > That's not right. There weren't any operating programs, nor have any
> > > > been found subsequently.
> > >
> > > But the inspectors never said that.
> > >
> > > Read this site.. it's excellent with lots of docs.
> > >
> > > http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB80/
> > >
> > > If find this one interesting...its a UN report just before the
> > > inspectors pulled out due to Iraqi noncooperation on Dec. 16, '98.
> > >
> > > http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB80/wmd08.pdf
> > >
> > > You can even see the forged Niger docs here.
> >
> > Seen 'em already! Maybe Italian intelligence will help us out on that
> > one. :-)
> >
> > > and Hans Blix first report 1/27/2003 after inspections resumed.
> > >
> > > Even then he has issues.
> > >
> > > http://tinyurl.com/aztcn
> >
> > These seem such small potatoes now: inventory problems, mostly, and not
> > the feared tip of the iceberg.
>
> The biggest were the lack of surveillance flights allowed and the
> general hide and seek they felt Iraqi officials were playing.
>
> I felt all along that the war justification could have just as well
> been made
> on 3 basis rather than 1.
> 1) WMD danger
> 2) Humanitarian
> 3) Anti-terrorism
>
> Even if 1 didn't pan out.. 2 and 3 remain legit.

Legit as motivations. They both fall apart on closer inspection of the
war's results. The humanitarian argument assumes conditions are better
now and they're not. Anti-terror? Iraq wasn't a big player and now we've
created a training ground for real terrorists.

It's like the truism about quarterbacks: if your team has two (or three)
starting quarterbacks, it doesn't really have a starting quarterback. If
the rationals keep shifting, what was the real motivation?

> > Here's David Kay:
> >
> > http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1160916,00.html
>
> Yup... hindsight.. he even says he had it all wrong.
> All he wants is Bush to admit it.
> I don't know why the don't... but an admission of error seems kind of
> small potatoes now as well.

Bush doesn't admit he's wrong about anything.

(snip)

> > > > > > How about an end to the term-limit experiment?
> > > > >
> > > > > Actually.. I like term limits. There is the trade off of rookies in
> > > > > Washington versus the corruption that comes with entrenchment.
> > > > >
> > > > > I also don't like the House and Senate rules that put so much power
> > > > > on Senior members. Term limits would eventually kill that.
> > > >
> > > > If they're all rookies, no one knows how to get stuff done!
> > >
> > > I think a large part of rookies not being able to accomplish
> > > anything comes from the rules putting power in Sr. members.
> > > All senators are elected equal IMO and no rules should
> > > dictate otherwise.
> >
> > The two-term representatives aren't learning fast enough in CA. Of
> > course, you could do like TX and meet every other year to give them time
> > to study up.
>
> Arny was talking up a part time legislature for awhile. He dropped
> that.

Part-time and term-limited? Lobbyist's dream! Revolving doors everywhere.

> > <snip>
> >
> > > > > I was thinking a dedicated campaign channel... and no time on
> > > > > commercial programming. Get away from the 30 second spots
> > > > > that can do nothing but hypnotize.
> > > >
> > > > Sorta like C-SPAN or cable access. Not a bad idea,
> > >
> > > exactly.. at least the people who want to understand the candidates
> > > will have opportunity.
> >
> > Some people would actually watch.
>
> I just watched my second SD mayoral race debate and I don't even get to
> vote..I'm outside city limits. 6 participants. Biggest problem is there
> is no freedom to let the candidates go at each other.
> I guess we have to wait for the runoff that is expected. None of them
> will win outright with more than 50%.

San Francisco has an "instant runoff" system, but I don't know if it's
in place yet.

> > > > although the problem
> > > > remains that the audience that needs to be reached is watching "Big
> > > > Brother 6" on another channel.
> > >
> > > and if they form their opinion based on only campaign adds?
> > > and even worse... based on which adds they see the most?
> >
> > Once the money's in place, sometimes the opposition doesn't show for
> > fear of spending big to lose.
>
> Very true.... Grey Davis went down with his war chest largely unspent.

And winners and losers alike spend too much time raising money.

> > > Last election in Ca. not a single state legislature district
> > > changed party control and not a single incumbent lost.
> > > I hate to say it but the art of mass manipulation has
> > > moved beyond most peoples ability to recognize and resist it.
> >
> > That's a big problem. Your gov was on the right track when he floated
> > the idea of redistricting proportionally.
>
> There will be a referendum on the ballot this fall. Now the dems are
> panicing
> and they're talking about a comprimise and then Arny will pull his
> support from the initiative. I think it would be a hoot if they did
> comprimise and the initiative still passed. These clowns think the
> voters are so easily controlled.

The proportional idea threatens the Demo majority in the short run. In
the long run, try to have a platform people want to vote for.

> > While I despised DeLay's
> > unprecedented redistricting here in Texas, I wasn't happy with the
> > previous goal of preserving incumbency.
>
> You should see some of the congressional districts in Ca. They call
> the Dryers the dumbbell cuz it has a 200 yard wide strip connecting two
> non-contiguous Republican communities. Really absurd.

I think DeLay has something like that. Support in his district was
reduced to make the plan work. My district stretches most of the way to
Houston, but there are some bad-looking districts here. Googling "Texas
irregularly shaped district" will bring up a site or two with the
details.

Stephen